SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(AP) 315

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Marishetty Pedda Gangaram – Appellant
Versus
Chukka Hanumandlu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri EVVS Ravi Kumar

ORDER :

These civil revision petitions raise interesting question of law. The point that would arise for consideration is whether an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings passed by the appellate Court in appeal or by the revisional Court in revision, operates as stay in considering the interlocutory application filed in the trial Court or bars only from proceeding with the trial of the suit.

2. The petitioners in these revision petitions are plaintiffs in suit OS No.108 of 2014 (old OS No.49 of 2003). The petitioners filed IA Nos.56, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 61 of 2017, respectively, in suit OS No. 108 of 2014, under Order 13, Rule 9, r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking return of original registered sale deeds filed by them to avail bank loans. The trial Court by the impugned orders, dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that this Court in CRP No.359 of 2008, dated 08-02-2008 allowed IA No.45 of 2006 filed by the petitioners herein, in the instant suit OS No.49 of 2003, granted stay of all further proceedings of the suit, till disposal of the appeal being AS No.62 of 2004. Hence these civil revision petitions.

3. Sri E.V.V.S Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the peti











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top