Telangana High Court
WA/2450/2005 of Smt. K. Satya Sampurna, Vs Madduri Shiva Shanker, on 23 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 2450 OF 2005 Between: Smt. K. Satya Sampurna. …… Appellant/Respondent-4 And Madduri Shiva Shankar and others. ……Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K.
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.
HON’BLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT APPEAL NO. 2450 OF 2005Between:Smt. K. Satya Sampurna.…… Appellant/Respondent-4AndMadduri Shiva Shankar and others.……Respondents:: JUDGMENT ::Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Panduranga RaoCounsel for Respondents 1&2: Sri C. DhanunjayaCounsel for Respondents 3 to 5: Government Pleader for Revenue Dated: 23-12-2005
Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
This appeal is directed against order dated 17-10-2005 passed by the learnedsingle Judge in W.V.M.P No. 2187 of 2005 and W.P.M.P No. 19558 of 2005 in WritPetition No. 15406 of 2005 whereby he declined to vacate ad interim order dated 15-07-2005 solely on the ground that in Second Appeal No. 450 of 2005, thelearned Judge has granted order of status quo.
On 19-12-2005, we have directed listing of this appeal along with the recordof Second Appeal No. 450 of 2005. The needful has been done.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused therecord of this appeal along with the record of W.V.M.P No. 2187 of 2005, W.P.M.PNo. 19558 of 2005, Writ Petition No. 15406 of 2005 and Second Appeal No. 450 of2005.
Admittedly, the appellant is not a party in the second appeal. Therefore, theorder of status quo passed by the learned Single Judge in that appeal could nothave been made basis for non-consideration of her prayer for vacating the ad interimorder passed in W.P.M.P No. 19558 of 2004. In our view, the learned Single Judge should have considered the appellant’s prayer in the backdrop of the avermentscontained in the application and record of Writ Petition No. 15406 of 2005 withoutbeing influenced by the order of status quo passed in Second Appeal No. 450 of2005.
In the premise aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated17-10-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge with a direction that W.V.M.P No.2187 of 2005 be listed before the learned Single Judge for consideration anddisposal on merits.
While deciding the appeal in the manner indicated above, we make it clearthat we deliberately refrained from commenting the merits of the appellant’s prayerand the order of status quo passed in Second Appeal No. 450 of 2005. The record ofsecond appeal may now be detagged from the file of this case and be listed beforeappropriate Bench as per roaster.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
23-12-2005
ks