Telangana High Court
WA/43/2010 of Pravathi Constructions Vs Cherlakola Ravinder Reddy S/o Late Chinna Reddy, on 30 December 2010
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SRI.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2010 17th March 2010. Between: M/S.PARVATHI CONSTRUCTIONS ( A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM), REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MEDAM PANDU, S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68, OCC: BUSINESS,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUAND
THE HON’BLE SRI.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2010
17[th] March 2010.
Between:
M/S.PARVATHI CONSTRUCTIONS(A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM),REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERMEDAM PANDU, S/O RANGAIAHAGED ABOUT 68, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O.FLAT NO.104, THE LEGENT APRTSD.NO.3.6.784, STREET NO.14,HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. APPELLANT
AND
CHERLAKOLA RAVINDER REDDY
AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTSTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2010
O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru)
An ad-interim direction dated 09.07.2008 came to be confirmed bythe learned single Judge vide order dated 22.09.2009 on the ground thatthe writ petition raises a question of mis-identification of the property and aserious dispute as to the title, fall out being, a restraint placed upon thecompetent authority from addressing the claim of the respondent No.5(appellant herein) seeking regularization of surplus land. Regard beinghad to the nature of controversy, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal on the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties.
We have been taken through the pleadings and have examined thesame very minutely, consideration whereof has brought us to a definiteconclusion that it is a case for the parties to support their claims not by thedocumentary evidence alone but by elaborate oral evidence as well andappropriate course to avail of that opportunity is before the Civil Court. Inthat view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the writpetition is not maintainable. Dismissed with liberty to the petitioners toinvoke appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. As a corollary,the impugned order shall stand vacated. Disposed of.
SANJAY KUMAR, J. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, C.J.
17[th ]March, 2010.tnb
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRUANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRITAPPEAL NO.43 OF 2010
O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru)
17[TH] March 2010.