A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Tammara Ahalya
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXM,AN AS.MP.No.2336 OF 2017 IN APPEAL SUIT N0.603 0F 2003 Petition under order lX Rure 4 R/w Section 15'r of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to set aside the dismissed order dated 2s.o1 .2oi6 and restore the appeal AS No.603 of 2003.
Between:
The APSRTC. rep. by its l\,4anaging Director, l\,4usheerabad, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND
1. Tammara Ahalya, W/o Seshagiri Rao, R/o Kodad, Nalgonda District.
2. N. Laxmaiah, S/o Rangaiah, R/o Kodad, Nalgonda District.
3. N. Ranga, S/o Rama lr/urthy, R/o Kodad, Nalgonda District.
4. The State of A.P., rep. by R.D.O. (LAO), tr,4iryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri palle Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Govt. preader for Appears, for the Respondent No.4. The Court made the following: ORDER This application is filed to restore the appeal to its file by setting aside the dismrssal order dt.25.01 .2016.
Learned counsel for the appellant sri A.Ravi Babu submits that initially the appeal was filed by sri K.Harinath, the then standing counsel for petitioner
Corporation; that subsequently the Standing Counsel for petitioner Corporation was changed, but the appeal remained in the name of previous counsel. On 25.01.2016 when the appeal was dismissed, since the appeal is listing in the name of previous counsel, none appeared for petitioner on 25.01.2016 and this Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The reason stated by the learned counsel for petitioner is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. ln view of the facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its file. As a consequence, the interim order granted earlier by this Court gets restored.
SD/- B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REG STRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Senior Civil Judge, Suryapel, Nalgonda District. One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Govt. Pleader for Appeals, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] The Section Officer, Appeal Filing Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
The Section Officer, V. R. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
Two CD Copies One Spare Copy br g
HIGH COURT DATED: 2210312022 16u 5!'r)qlt o L) $11'1$t 'r'lli? .i '(.
'.{) tl G".- n
ORDER
AS.MP.No.2336 OF 2017 IN APPEAL SUIT NO.6O3 OF 2OO3 APPEAL RESTORED TO FILE aQ.
r