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

2025 Supreme(AP) 514

RAVI NATH TILHARI
Nagireddy Tulasi Katyayini – Appellant
Versus
Bathina Sujatha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.K. Kishore Reddy
For the Respondent: P. Vivek

JUDGMENT :

1. The copy of the C.R.P., was not served to the learned Counsel for the respondent/caveator. Such objection was raised, upon which vide order dated 20.12.2024 Registry was directed to submit the report, that once there was caveat, how could the CRP be numbered without serving the copies of the petition to the caveator.

2. The Registry submitted a report as follow :

    "It is respectfully submitted the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed CRP (SR) without copy of the Caveat petition and did not make any endorsement regarding service to the other side Counsel. And the Counsel for the petitioner paid batta at the time of filing the above CRP (SR).

    Hence, the Registry has processed the CRP and numbered and posted without having the knowledge about the caveat petition. After numbering the CRP No.3145 of 2024 was sent to CRP Section, and the CRP Section has put up the caveat in the bundle".

3. Not being satisfied with the office report by order dated 27.12.2024, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to submit the report "clearly pointing out the procedure for filing the Caveat; as also its intimation to CRP Section and to Registry. It shall be indicated if the caveat is not repor






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