Date :05.01.2022
CMA 498 of 2021
Between:
Patsamatla Ranga Raju
S/o P Bhima Raju Aged about 53 years Occ Business ... appearing
for Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for appellants in CMA No.498
of 2021 and 502 of 2021; Sri V Ravinder
trial Court in this CRP.
5.1. She further submitted that the CMA was preferred by the
petitioners - defendants aggrieved by the order ... Judge at Khammam
and reported that no order was passed in the CMA till date.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar passed in CMA
No.34 of 2018 dated 02.05.2018 in confirming the order of I Additional ... suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the
same, the defendant No.3 preferred CMA No. 34 of 2018. The said CMA
was also heard on merits
filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the order
dated 21.02.2019 in CMA No.3 of 2017 confirming the order dated ... seeking temporary injunction, against which, the CMA was filed and
aggrieved by the dismissal of CMA, the present CRP is filed.
4. Considering the submissions
passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar for
allowing the CMA No.5 of 2017.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff ... trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent/plaintiff preferred CMA No.5 of 2017.
The V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, allowed the CMA
setting
petitioners-defendants,
aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2019 passed in CMA ... plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 - plaintiff preferred CMA and
the CMA was allowed by the learned VII Additional District Judge,
Bodhan. Aggrieved
Bench: G.Radha Rani
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CMA.No.742 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that ... appeal may be
dismissed as not pressed.
Recording the same, the CMA is dismissed as not pressed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal
stock within three months.
The defendants challenged the said order by filing CMA No.4526
of 2004. The same was dismissed vide order dated
stock within three months.
The defendants challenged the said order by filing CMA No.4526
of 2004. The same was dismissed vide order dated
allowed on merits, but challenging
the same, the petitioner preferred a CMA and the same was pending. The
respondent
