Thursday, 16, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ch. Shankar Rao vs V. Venkateswara Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 6974 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6974 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 December, 2022

Telangana High Court
Ch. Shankar Rao vs V. Venkateswara Rao on 26 December, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                 APPEAL SUIT No.2580 of 2003

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree of

the trial Court in O.S.No.73 of 1997 dated 24.01.2003.

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages of Rs.3,00,000/-. The trial

Court after considering the entire evidence on record decreed

the suit partly and directed the defendants to pay Rs.2,00,000/-

with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of suit

till the date of realization. Aggrieved by said Judgment,

defendant No.1 preferred the present appeal.

This Court by order, dated 26.09.2003, granted interim

stay of execution of decree on condition of the

appellant/defendant No.1 depositing half of the decretal amount

within a period of six weeks from that day. Since the appellant

failed to deposit the amount within the time stipulated, this

Court, on 17.11.2003, again granted six weeks time to comply

with the said order. Subsequently, the appellant filed ASMP

No.359 of 2005 stating that on account of his absence in the

country, necessary arrangements could not be made for

compliance of the orders of this Court and now he is prepared to

comply with the conditional order of this Court. Since the

learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs did not oppose

the same, this Court, by order dated 07.03.2005, granted

further four weeks time for depositing the amount.

The learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs

submits that the half of the decretal amount is not yet deposited

till date even after granting extension of time to the

appellant/1st defendant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court finds that in spite of granting time to deposit

the half of the decretal amount to the appellant/defendant No.1

from 2003 to till date, he failed to deposit the same. Therefore,

the appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

Dated: 26.12.2022 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No. 2580 of 2003

26.12.2022

TRI

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter