Telangana High Court
CRP/5777/2010 of P.Parvathamma Vs Balraju on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5777 of 2010 Date:31st December, 2010 Between: P.Parvathamma ..... Petitioner AND 1. Balraju & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5777 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5777 of 2010
Date:31stDecember, 2010
Between:P.Parvathamma
AND
..... Petitioner
1. Balraju & Ors.
.....Respondents
***
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.5777 of 2010
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.
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated26.11.2010 passed in I.A.No.1067 of 2010 in O.P.No.344 of 2002 onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I AdditionalDistrict Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the learnedChairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed theapplication filed by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seekingpermission to withdraw the amounts invested in the fixed deposits.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusedthe order impugned in the revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner requires further amount to fulfill her obligations consequenton the marriage of her daughters and therefore, order impugned in the revision is to be set aside and consequently permit the petitioner towithdraw the amount.
4. As seen from the material brought on record, the petitioner hadalready withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,12,306/- on 21.09.2010. Nojustifiable reasons have been assigned in the affidavit for withdrawal offurther amount. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interferewith the order impugned in the revision. However, the petitioner is atliberty to make a fresh application by giving the details whichnecessitated her to move an application for withdrawal ofRs.1,00,000/-.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at theadmission stage. No costs.
Date:31[st] December, 2010.
______________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
cs
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Date:31stDecember, 2010