Abdul Azeem Mitaigar vs Shriram City Union Finance ...

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1631 AP
Judgement Date : 6 April, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Abdul Azeem Mitaigar vs Shriram City Union Finance ... on 6 April, 2022
        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

                                AND

      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.579 OF 2022

1. Abdul Azeem Mitaigar,
   S/o.M. Abdul Sattarmiya,
   Aged about 53 years,
   Occ:Fashion Men's Wear,
   R/o.D.No.23-127, Kota Street,
   Nandyal, Kurnool District-518501.
2. Mitaigar Nazira Begum,
   W/o.Mitaigar Abdul Azeem,
   Aged about 46 years,
   R/o.D.No.23-127, Kota Street,
   Nandyal, Kurnool District-518501.        ...    Petitioners

                                          Versus

1. M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
   Registrar Office, Angappa Naiken Street,
   Chennai, Administration Office at
   D.No.3-6-478, 4th Floor, Anand Estate,
   Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar,
   Hyderabad (Nandyal Branch).
2. M. Sai Niranjan, S/o.M. Nageswara Rao,
   Aged about 31 years, R/o.D.No.4-149,
   RTC Colony, Kranthi Nagar,
   Nandyal, Kurnool District.
3. T. Sundara Ramaiah, Arbitrator,
   R/o.D.No.1-1-300/B, 1st Floor,
   Ashok Nagar Main Road,
   Above Canara Bank, Ashok Nagar,
   Hyderabad-500020.                       ...     Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. P. Narasimhulu, Advocate Counsel for the respondents : ---

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06.04.2022 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Mr. P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition with liberty to move before the appropriate forum, which according to 2 him is the Court below, for the relief sought for in the present petition.

2. Having regard to the aforesaid, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

3. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to correctness or otherwise of the forum before which the petitioners propose to move. No order as to costs.

4. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

_______________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) ________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dsh