Telangana High Court
CRP/6105/2003 of CHODEY BHANUMURTHY (DIED) AND 7 OTHERS Vs MUMMAREDDI SEETARATNAM AND 4 OTHERS on 19 December 2003
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND THREE : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6105 of 2003 (Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutional of India to revise the
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE : B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6105 of 2003(Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutional of India to revise the order of the court of the Senior CivilJudge, Narsipatnam made in I.A. No.165 of 2002 in O.S. No. 59 of 1977 dated 4-3-2003)
Between:
1. Chodey Bhanumurthy (DIED)
2. Chodey Bapiraju (DIED)
3. Chodey Suryanarayana Murthy (DIED)
4. Chodey Veera Swamy
5. Chodey Annapurnamma (DIED)
6. Chodey Veera Mohan Rao
7. Chodey Satyanarayanamurthy
8. Chodey Srirammurthy Petitioners
AND
1. Mummareddi Seetaratnam
2. Mummareddi Anantalaxmi Satyavathi
3. Mummareddi Bapayamma
4. Mummareddi Sriramamurthy
5. Chodey Ramayyamma (DIED)
(Respondents 2 and 3 being minors being rep. by their next friend and guardian 1[st] RespondentMummareddi Seetaratnam)Mummareddi Seetaratnam)
Respondents
The petition coming on for orders as to admission upon perusing the petition and Grounds filedherein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners, theCourt made the following :
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:
“ This civil revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directedagainst the inaction on the part of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam in issuingcheque in favour of the petitioners.
Prima facie, there appears to be no justification on the part of the learned Senior CivilJudge in not issuing the cheque as prayed for by the petitioners herein and particularly inview of the fact that this court in CRP No. 1753 of 2003 dated 24-4-2003 rejected theobjections raised by the respondents herein in the matter.
In the circumstances, the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam is directed tomake an enquiry into the matter and submit a report to this court within three weeks fromtoday.
Post on 19-12-2003.”
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
To
for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
1. The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam (WITH A DIRECTION TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY INTO THE MATTER AND SUBMIT AREPORT TO THIS COURT WITHIN THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY)REPORT TO THIS COURT WITHIN THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY)
2. The Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District
3. Mummareddi Seetaratnam, W/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District (ONBEHALF OF HERSELF AND (1) MUMMAREDDI ANANTALAXMI SATYAVATHI AND (2)MUMMAREDDI BAPAYAMMA – BEING MINORS).BEHALF OF HERSELF AND (1) MUMMAREDDI ANANTALAXMI SATYAVATHI AND (2)MUMMAREDDI BAPAYAMMA – BEING MINORS).
4. Mummareddi Sriramamurthy, S/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District(ADDRESSEES 3 & 4 BY RPAD)(ADDRESSEES 3 & 4 BY RPAD)
5. One spare copy.
MSR
HIGH COURT
DATE: 28-11-2003
ORDER
C.R.P.No. 6105 of 2003
DRAFTED BY : MSRDRAFTED ON : 28-11-2003
HIGH COURT
BRSRJ
DATE: 28-11-2003
NOTE: POST ON 19-12-2003
ORDER
C.R.P.No. 6105 of 2003