LawSphereX

Surakanti Swaroopa v. Surakanti Bhaskar Reddy

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-16. Surakanti Swaroopa v. Surakanti Bhaskar Reddy. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

t 3448 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B. R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REV|S|ON PETITTON NOS; 2422 0F 2022 AND 't 63 0F 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOi 2422 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order passed by the Order dated: 12. 1 1. 2021 passed in lA Nos. 50 of 2021 in OS No. 31 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad. Between: 't. Surakanti Swaroopa, D/o late Ramesh Reddy, aged 48 years, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o H. No, 21-30315-7, Kailasgiri Colony, Bhagawanthamwada, Mancherial- 504208 2. Surakanti Malavika, D/o late Ramesh Reddy, aged 31 years, Occ: Software Engineer, presently residing at Ri. /O 84 rue Victor Hugo, Bois-colombes, Paris- 92279 France. 3.

Surakanti Vikas Reddy, S/o late Ramesh Reddy, aged 29 years, presently residing at Door Number 212, Kingsley Road, Hounslow, TW3 4AR, London,. -t Unitedkingdom (Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented by their G. P. A. holder, Petitioner No. 1 herein (Mother of the Petitioners 2 and 3) (ln the lA, the Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff wrongly mentioned the as residence of Petitioners as Rapally village, Hazipur Mandal, District Mancherial) ) ... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 AND 1. Surakanti -Bhaskar Reddy, S/o late Malla Reddy, aged 51 years, Occ: Government Employee, Rl/o H. No. 4-17313, Flat No. 108, Saiteja Apartment. JB Nagar, Mancherial Town and District. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAI NTIFF 2. Surakanti Vajramma, Wo late Malla Reddy, aged 71 years, Occ: Housewife, Ri/o H. No. 5-251. lndira Nagar, lvlancherial Town and Dist. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 4/Defendant No. 4 fA NO: 2 oF 2022 Petition under Section-1. 51 CpC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in th.

e affidavit fired in support,of the pe-tition, ir,""High'iorrt may be preased to orant a, furrher proceedings in itgl.. of o. s. r. io- ir Ji zors p". :;;Hih" -penoing i,:,"""r, Additional District and sessions Judge, ManJeriat rri ;p6sar oi in" ,ooru Counsel for the petitioner: Sri. V Rohith Counsel for the Respondent No. 1:Sri. CH Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: _- CIVIL REVIsro N PETITIO N NO: 163 oF 202s Petition under Article 221 of the Constitution of lndiir 'tn aggrieved bv the order dated 12-11- 2021 oassed in rn rrro. si oiio)l os I,t,, #;;;;;; ;r" il" file of the court of the ilr Additionar oistiict ani'sl'. -. ion, Judg,r Asifabad Between: I Surakanti Swaroooa, Ramesh Reddy, ! {o_ age ,r 48 years, Housewife, Ryo H. No -tg! e Occ: 2 1 -303t s -7, Ka i ta sg i ri Co tiiny, t r, gi*ri,i;'" lVlancheriat- SO42O8. ;*;'0";, 2 Surakanti Malavika. D/o late Ramesh Reddy, aged 31 ye rrs, Occ: Software ntly resid i n g at R6;; il;Viti;,fi ;s;. e, . _ib br.

,l"il,p;n:,] ni;;r;I; fl::e J Reddy, S/o tate Ramesh 9^l!? llr_"ti . Vikas Reddy, aged :9 years. presenflv resrdrng at Door Number 212, Kingsley noaA, ff-<iuri,fo* W,S ani,i""""d;;1 United Kingdom. (Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented by their G. P. A hol: -. r, Petitioner herein (Mother of petitiohers No.. l the 2 and 3). ( ln the lA, the Resoondent No. 1lplaintiff wrongly mentione J the as residence of Petitioners as Rapaly vilasl, Hazip;;ri;il:i:tjc"irLt r\1 rncheriat) ... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS . t a to 3/DE:t ENDANTSI TO 3 AND 1 Surakanti Bhaskar Reddv, S/o late Malla Reddy, agcr Si years, Occ: Government Emptoyee, R/o H. No. i-liai, ir"itl. roe . ;aiteja Apartment, JB Nagar, Mancherial Town and District. jramma,worater",,X*=3lo? lr'rt"]tl? =r::ll'Hyi:t|xlitj iy,q[? ltiVa R/o H No.. 5-251, tndira Nagar, Manchertriit*i,l"o'O1. t ( Kespondent No. 2 is not necessary ) ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT No. 1 C EFENDANT No. 4 _+_-:_.

- i / tANO:1OF2 023 Petition under Order 3 Rule 21 read with 1S,l CpC. , praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner No. 1/ petitioner No. 1 to represent on behalf of the Petitioners 2 and 3t Petitioners 2 and 3 nerein in the capacity of their Attorney holder. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in OS No. OS No. 31 of 2015 pending on the file of I Additional District and sessions Judge, Mancherial pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. V Rohith Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA I,' HYDERABAD THE HON,BLE JUSTICE B. R. MADHUSUDHI N RAO crvll, REVTSIoN PETITION NOS.

2422 OF 2022 AIil | 163 OF 2023 DATED THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, i O25 Between: CRPNo. 2422 of2022 Surakanti Swaroopa and others Petitioners And Surakanti Bhzrskar Reddy and another Respondents CRP No. 163 of2O23 Surakanti Swzuoopa and others Petitioners And Surakanti Bhaskar Reddy and another ... Respondents COMMON ORDER: 1. Thesc matters are listed for the first time beforr this Bench 2. These Civil Revision Petitions are hled under . \ 'ttcle 227 of the Constitution crf Indi:i assailing the common order c t red 12. 71. 2021 passed in LA. Nos. SO and 51 of 2O2l in O. S. No. 3i of 2015 by the learned III Addl. District arrd Sessions Judge, Asifab r I ( 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners i r both the CRPs \ submits that I. A. No. So of 2O2l is filed under Sectrcr 5 of Limitation CRP NOs 2422 OF 2022 & 163 *,\^":":- -"e5 Act, to condone the delay in hling the application, to set aside the dismissed for defauit order dated 27. 1O. 2016 passed in O. S. No. 31 of 2015 and I.

A. No. S1 of 2O2l is filed under Order IX Rule 4 r w. f Section 151 of CPC to restore O. S. No. 3 I of 2015, which was dismissed for default on 21. 10. 2O16. Both the applications are allon'ed. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRps are hled. 4. Respondent No. 1 is represented by counsel. 5. Lcarned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the CRPs submits that after the suit is restored, it was again dismissed for default on26. 11. 2024. In viewof the same, he made an endorsement on both the CRP's stating that in case if the suit is restored on the application hled by the respondents he may be permitted to revive the CRPs. 6. In view of the endorsement made by learned counsei for the petitioners, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The petitioners are permitted to revive the CRP as and when suit in O. S. No. 31 of 2015 is restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order/s if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s sha-ll stald closed. SD/- V.

HARI PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR I G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To '1 . The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Asifabad. 2 The lAdditional District and Sessions Judg6 at Mancherial 3. One CC to SRt. V Rohith, Advocate toputl 4. One CC to SRl. CH Koteswara Rao, Advocaie tOpUCI t- 5. Two CD Copies /w orlS a HIGH COURT DATED: 1611212025 . THE ST. 1 C, t2 () ir,)i 1 rl il \ t. c) ( t COMMON ORDER €Spp':CH CRP. Nos. 2422 OF 2022 AND 163 0F 2023 DISPOSING OF THESE CRP'S { \v 3\

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.