[{"_1":2,"_385":-5,"_386":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4},"routes/cnr.$cnr.$order",{"_5":6,"_180":181,"_383":384,"_265":351,"_267":-5},"caseData",{"_7":8,"_248":249,"_257":258,"_364":365,"_382":-5},"courtCaseData",{"_9":10,"_11":12,"_13":14,"_15":16,"_17":18,"_19":20,"_21":22,"_23":24,"_25":26,"_105":106,"_107":108,"_110":111,"_116":117,"_118":119,"_120":104,"_121":122,"_180":181,"_182":183,"_184":183,"_185":186,"_187":188,"_189":190,"_191":192,"_193":194,"_112":195,"_196":197,"_198":199,"_200":39,"_201":39,"_202":203,"_204":205,"_207":208,"_210":211,"_213":214,"_215":216,"_217":218,"_219":220,"_221":222,"_234":235,"_236":237,"_238":239,"_246":247},"caseNumber","202300003082022","district","EAST GODAVARI","state","AP","causelistType","DAILY LIST-1","courtName","APHC","courtNo",3311,"firDetails",{},"judicialSection","UNKNOWN","historyOfCaseHearings",[27,36,41,43,47,49,54,56,59,62,66,69,72,75,79,81,84,86,89,91,93,95,98,100,102],{"_28":29,"_30":31,"_32":33,"_34":35},"causeListType","CAUSE LIST MOTION HEARING","judge","NINALA JAYASURYA","hearingDate","2022-02-21","purposeOfListing","FOR ADMISSION (CRP MATTERS)",{"_30":37,"_38":39,"_34":40},"B S BHANUMATHI","businessOnDate","2023-09-06","Disposed",{"_28":29,"_30":31,"_38":33,"_32":42,"_34":35},"2022-03-28",{"_28":44,"_30":31,"_38":42,"_32":45,"_34":46},"DAILY LIST","2022-04-18","ADMISSION",{"_28":44,"_30":31,"_38":45,"_32":48,"_34":46},"2022-06-15",{"_28":16,"_30":50,"_38":51,"_32":52,"_34":53},"BATTU DEVANAND","2022-06-30","2022-07-28","FOR EXTENSION OF INTERIM ORDERS",{"_28":16,"_30":50,"_38":52,"_32":55,"_34":46},"2022-09-08",{"_28":16,"_30":50,"_38":57,"_32":58,"_34":46},"2022-09-19","2022-09-26",{"_28":16,"_30":50,"_38":60,"_32":61,"_34":53},"2022-09-22","2022-10-20",{"_28":44,"_30":63,"_38":64,"_32":65,"_34":53},"SUBBA REDDY SATTI","2022-11-23","2022-12-07",{"_28":44,"_30":63,"_38":67,"_32":68,"_34":46},"2022-12-21","2023-02-01",{"_28":44,"_30":70,"_38":68,"_32":71,"_34":35},"RAVI CHEEMALAPATI","2023-02-15",{"_28":73,"_30":70,"_38":71,"_32":74,"_34":35},"DAILY LIST -2","2023-03-01",{"_28":73,"_30":70,"_38":76,"_32":77,"_34":78},"2023-03-14","2023-03-21","FOR ADMISSION",{"_28":73,"_30":70,"_38":80,"_34":35},"2023-04-04",{"_28":16,"_30":63,"_38":82,"_32":83,"_34":78},"2023-04-25","2023-07-04",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":85,"_34":46},"2023-07-18",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":87,"_32":88,"_34":46},"2023-07-21","2023-07-24",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":88,"_32":90,"_34":46},"2023-07-31",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":90,"_32":92,"_34":46},"2023-08-02",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":92,"_32":94,"_34":46},"2023-08-04",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":94,"_32":96,"_34":97},"2023-08-07","FOR FURTHER HEARING",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":96,"_32":99,"_34":97},"2023-08-14",{"_28":44,"_30":37,"_38":99,"_32":101,"_34":97},"2023-08-24",{"_28":103,"_30":37,"_38":101,"_32":39,"_34":104},"COMPANY MATTERS","FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS","filedDocuments",[],"judgeCode",[109],"1026","subordinateCourt",{"_112":113,"_9":114,"_17":115},"filingDate","2021-12-29","OS - 0000207 - 2018","VIII ADDL.DISTRICT (FTC) COURT, RAJAMUNDRY","linkCases",[],"benchName","Single Bench","purpose","interimOrders",[123,129,131,134,136,138,140,142,144,146,148,150,152,154,156,158,160,162,164,166,168,170,172,174,176,178],{"_124":33,"_125":126,"_127":128},"orderDate","description","View Spl Cell Orders","orderUrl","order-1.pdf",{"_124":33,"_125":126,"_127":130},"order-2.pdf",{"_124":42,"_125":132,"_127":133},"View Court Proceedings","order-3.pdf",{"_124":45,"_125":132,"_127":135},"order-4.pdf",{"_124":45,"_125":126,"_127":137},"order-5.pdf",{"_124":51,"_125":132,"_127":139},"order-6.pdf",{"_124":51,"_125":126,"_127":141},"order-7.pdf",{"_124":52,"_125":132,"_127":143},"order-8.pdf",{"_124":52,"_125":126,"_127":145},"order-9.pdf",{"_124":60,"_125":126,"_127":147},"order-10.pdf",{"_124":64,"_125":126,"_127":149},"order-11.pdf",{"_124":67,"_125":132,"_127":151},"order-12.pdf",{"_124":67,"_125":126,"_127":153},"order-13.pdf",{"_124":68,"_125":132,"_127":155},"order-14.pdf",{"_124":68,"_125":126,"_127":157},"order-15.pdf",{"_124":68,"_125":126,"_127":159},"order-16.pdf",{"_124":71,"_125":132,"_127":161},"order-17.pdf",{"_124":71,"_125":126,"_127":163},"order-18.pdf",{"_124":76,"_125":126,"_127":165},"order-19.pdf",{"_124":76,"_125":132,"_127":167},"order-20.pdf",{"_124":82,"_125":126,"_127":169},"order-21.pdf",{"_124":96,"_125":132,"_127":171},"order-22.pdf",{"_124":96,"_125":126,"_127":173},"order-23.pdf",{"_124":99,"_125":132,"_127":175},"order-24.pdf",{"_124":99,"_125":126,"_127":177},"order-25.pdf",{"_124":101,"_125":132,"_127":179},"order-26.pdf","cnr","APHC010065202022","cnrCourtCode","APHC01","courtCode","cnrCaseNumber","006520","cnrYear","2022","caseType","CRP","caseStatus","DISMISSED","filingNumber","5248/2022","2022-02-14","registrationNumber","308/2022","registrationDate","2022-02-17","nextHearingDate","decisionDate","judges",[37],"petitioners",[206],"Angeethi's Restaurant","petitionerAdvocates",[209],"P RAJESH BABU","respondents",[212],"Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises","respondentAdvocates",[],"actsAndSections","01- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - 227","taggedMatters",[],"earlierCourtDetails",[],"interlocutoryApplications",[223],{"_224":225,"_226":227,"_228":229,"_230":231,"_112":199,"_232":233},"regNo","IA/1/2022 Classification : Stay Petition","particular","Stay Petition","remark","--","filedBy","M/s.Angeethi's Restaurant","status","Pending","listingDates",[],"notices",[],"judgmentOrders",[240,244],{"_124":39,"_241":242,"_127":243},"orderType","Final Order","order-27.pdf",{"_124":39,"_241":242,"_127":245},"order-28.pdf","caveatDetails",[],"entityInfo",{"_180":181,"_250":251,"_252":251,"_253":254,"_255":256},"nextDateOfHearing","2023-09-06T00:00:00Z","lastDateOfHearing","dateCreated","2025-07-04T05:19:11.115821Z","dateModified","2025-08-23T07:04:02.56634Z","files",{"_257":259},[260,268,272,276,280,284,288,292,296,300,304,308,312,316,320,324,328,332,336,340,344,348,352,356,360],{"_261":262,"_263":264,"_265":266,"_267":-5},"pdfFile","APHC010065202022-order-1.pdf","markdownFile","APHC010065202022-order-1.md","markdownContent","## HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n## MAIN CASE: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n| DATE | riccepning suppl
ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE |\r\n|------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\r\n| | | |\r\n| | C.R.P. No.308 of 2022 | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | Notice before admission. | |\r\n| | Issue notice to the respondents returnable in | |\r\n| | three weeks. | |\r\n| | Learned counsel for the petitioner
$\\quad\\text{is}\\quad$ | |\r\n| | permitted to take out personal notice to the | |\r\n| | respondents and file proof of service. | |\r\n| | List the matter on $28.3.2022$ . | |\r\n| | Considering the submissions made
by | |\r\n| | learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be | |\r\n| | interim stay as prayed for, for a period of eight $(8)$ | |\r\n| | weeks. | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | $\\mathbf{NJS}, \\mathbf{J}$ | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | |\r\n| | | 21.2.2022 NJS, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
vasu |\r\n\r\n## PROCEEDING SHEET","aiAnalysis",{"_261":269,"_263":270,"_265":271,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-10.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-10.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n## THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND\r\n\r\n**CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022** \r\n\r\n#### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner. Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n## **.....** Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n#### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, $r/o. Door$ No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road. Old Vegetable Market. Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n### **.....** Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the honourable court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, that the Memorandum of Understanding dt.01-8-2015 requires Stamp duty and penalty thereby allowing the Revision by calling for the records of the suit in OS No. 207/2018.\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 30.06.2022 & 28.07.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.3, the Court made the following:\r\n\r\n## ORDER:\r\n\r\n## \"Heard.\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier by this Court is extended for a period of eight weeks. $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{M}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\frac{\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N-1}x_i}{N-1} \\leq \\frac{1}{N-1}$ \r\n\r\n# **I/TRUE COPY//**\r\n\r\n## Sd/-G.HELA NAIDU **ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**\r\n\r\n## For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\nTo,\r\n\r\n- 1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n $\\hat{y}_1 = x^2 y$ $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}$ \r\n\r\n> romana a filmy $\\chi\\ll W_0$\r\n\r\n4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**KN** \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\nDEV, J\r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{S}^{1,2}_{\\mathbb{S}^2} \\to \\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ \r\n\r\nDATED: 22.09.2022\r\n\r\n**ORDER** \r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED** \r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg)",{"_261":273,"_263":274,"_265":275,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-11.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-11.md","# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATION\r\n\r\n# WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO\r\n\r\n## :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022\r\n\r\n### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n# ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n#### **AND**\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23. Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market. Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n## **.....** Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women. East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n#### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 30.06.2022, 28.07.2022, 22.09.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following;\r\n\r\n## ORDER:\r\n\r\n# \"At request of learned counsel for petitioner, list on 21.12.2022.\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}$ \r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by eight (08) more weeks.\"\r\n\r\n $\\tau = \\tau_0$ \r\n\r\nSd/- U.SRI DEVI\r\n\r\n**SECTION OFFICER** \r\n\r\n $25$ \r\n\r\n**ASSISTANT REGISTRAR** \r\n\r\n# //TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\n#### To,\r\n\r\n1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n $\\tau \\rightarrow \\tau_{\\text{eff}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{L}}(t)$ \r\n\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{A}}$ $\\mathbb{P}^1 \\times \\mathbb{P}^2$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{A}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{P}(\\frac{1}{2},\\frac{1}{2})$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{F}^{\\pm}_1$ \r\n\r\n4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n $ER$ .\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{J}$ \r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\n $\\text{SRS},\\,\\text{J}$ \r\n\r\nDATED: 23.11.2022\r\n\r\nLIST ON 21.12.2022\r\n\r\n**ORDER** \r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED** \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":277,"_263":278,"_265":279,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-12.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-12.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI**\r\n\r\n## MAIN CASE : **C.R.P.No.308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**\r\n\r\n| Sl.
No. | Date | ORDER | OFFIC
E |\r\n|------------|------------|----------------------------------------------|------------|\r\n| 8. | 21.12.2022 | | NOTE |\r\n| | | SRS,J | |\r\n| | | List on 01.02.2023 | |\r\n| | | Interim order granted earlier is extended by | |\r\n| | | eight more weeks. | |\r\n| | | _________ | |\r\n| | | SRS,J
ikn | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":281,"_263":282,"_265":283,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-13.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-13.md","# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n# WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO\r\n\r\n### :PRESENT:\r\n\r\n# THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n#### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n## ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n## AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, Old Vegetable Market. No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road. $r/o. Door$ Raiamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n### ..... Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women. East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 30.06.2022, 28.07.2022, 22.09.2022 & 23.11.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following;\r\n\r\nORDER:\r\n\r\n# \"List on 01.02.2023\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by eight more weeks.\"\r\n\r\nSd/- U. SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\nSECTION OFFICER\r\n\r\n## //TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\n高麗花園\r\n\r\nむじゃ\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}}$ $\\mathcal{Z}_{\\text{max}} \\gets \\mathcal{Z}$ $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{F}}(x)$ $\\sim$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}^{\\perp}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} \\times \\mathcal{L}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathsf{To},$ \r\n\r\n- 1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n\r\n3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**CVSS** \r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\n $\\text{SRS},\\,\\text{J}$ \r\n\r\nDATED: 21.12.2022\r\n\r\nLIST ON 01.02.2023.\r\n\r\n**ORDER** \r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED** \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":285,"_263":286,"_265":287,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-16.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-16.md","# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATION\r\n\r\nWEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE\r\n\r\n## :PRESENT:\r\n\r\n# THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI\r\n\r\n# **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n## Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n..... Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n#### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. Mrs.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, Old Vegetable Road, Hall No.31-1-23, Town $r/o. Door$ Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n# ..... Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n#### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 30.06.2022, 28.07.2022, 22.09.2022, 23.11.2022 & 21.12.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following:\r\n\r\n### ORDER:\r\n\r\n\"Post on 15.02.2023\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by two weeks.\"\r\n\r\nthe in\r\n\r\nSD/- A.VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\n### //TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\nSECTION OFFICER\r\n\r\nTo,\r\n\r\n- 1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n $\\mathbf{6}^{\\prime},\\mathbf{5}^{\\prime},$ $\\cdots \\sim$ \r\n\r\n4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**NBR** \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Figure_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\nHIGH COURT\r\n\r\nRC, J\r\n\r\nDATED: 01.02.2023\r\n\r\nPost ON 15.02.2023.\r\n\r\nORDER\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\nINTERIM ORDER EXTENDED\r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_7.jpeg)\r\n\r\n $\\hat{\\mathbf{t}}$",{"_261":289,"_263":290,"_265":291,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-17.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-17.md","## HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH\r\n\r\n## MAIN CASE NO.: **C.R.P.No.308 of 2022**\r\n\r\n## PROCEEDING SHEET\r\n\r\n| Sl. | Date | ORDER | OFFICE |\r\n|-----|------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|\r\n| No. | | | NOTE |\r\n| 10. | 15.02.2023 | RC,
J | |\r\n| | | At the request of the learned counsel for | |\r\n| | | the petitioner, post on
01.03.2023. | |\r\n| | | Interim order granted earlier is extended | |\r\n| | | by four weeks. | |\r\n| | | ________ | |\r\n| | | RC, J
SPP | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":293,"_263":294,"_265":295,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-18.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-18.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE / :PRESENT:\r\n\r\n## THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI\r\n\r\n#### CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022\r\n\r\n#### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n#### **.....** Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, $r/o. Door$ No.31-1-23. Town Hall Road. Old Vegetable Market. Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n#### **.....** Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n $\\{h_{\\alpha}\\}$ \r\n\r\n#### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022 $18.04.2022$ , $30.06.2022$ , $28.07.2022$ , $22.09.2022$ , $23.11.2022$ , $21.12.2022$ & 01.02.2023 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following;\r\n\r\n## **ORDER:**\r\n\r\n\"At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, post on Sec. 01.03.2023.\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by four weeks.\"\r\n\r\n# Sd/- K. J. RAJA BABU **ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**\r\n\r\n## **IITRUE COPYII**\r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{E}[\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathbb{E}}}}[v^*]]$ \r\n\r\n $\\overline{B}$ \r\n\r\n# SECTION OFFICER\r\n\r\nTo,\r\n\r\n1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n> $\\begin{bmatrix} \\mathbf{q}_1 & \\mathbf{q}_2 & \\mathbf{q}_3 & \\mathbf{q}_4 \\\\ \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 \\\\ \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 & \\mathbf{q}_4 \\\\ \\end{bmatrix}$ $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}_{\\mathcal{L}}$\r\n\r\n> > $\\mathcal{M} = \\frac{1}{N} \\cdot \\frac{1}{N} \\cdot \\frac{1}{N}$\r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{C}\\backslash\\mathbb{R}^3$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{A}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L}$ $\\mathcal{L}_{\\mathcal{A}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\begin{smallmatrix}&&&\\\\&&&1\\\\0&&&1\\\\&1&&&1\\end{smallmatrix}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{C} = \\mathcal{M}_1$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}$ $\\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{array} \\\\ \\end{array} \\\\ \\begin{array}{c} \\begin{array}{c} \\end{$ $\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}$ \r\n\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n- 4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**CVSS** \r\n\r\n $\\ddot{\\phantom{a}}$ \r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\nRC, J\r\n\r\n $\\frac{1}{2}$ \r\n\r\nDATED: 15.02.2023\r\n\r\nPost ON 01.03.2023.\r\n\r\n**ORDER** \r\n\r\n $\\frac{1}{4}$ \r\n\r\n $\\cdot$ $\\cdot$ \r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n## **INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED**\r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg)\r\n\r\n $\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}$",{"_261":297,"_263":298,"_265":299,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-19.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-19.md","# lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARA\\ TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWEb :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI clvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022\r\n\r\n# Between :\r\n\r\nEi '`` r\r\n\r\n> M/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, W'lfe of Sr'l Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n..... petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n3 =i=;r. #,-l`J`\r\n\r\n/. r.,\r\n\r\n## AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, RajamahendraVaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East-Godavari District.\r\n- 3. lyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n# ..... Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\npet®ltion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed pray'lng the Honourable Court to allow the revision by Setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the Vlll Addl. District and sess'lons Judge-Gum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. i\r\n\r\n### \\_\\_ \\_ \\_ lANO: 1 OF2O22\r\n\r\npetition under section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support~of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings Of the Suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the court of the vlll Addl. D'lstrict and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of offenses against women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until futher orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal Of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming On for hearing, upon Perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 30,06.2022, 28.07.2022, 22.09.2022, 23.ll.2022, 21.12.2022 o1.02.2023 & 15.02.2023 made herein and upon hearing the arguments Of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following;\r\n\r\n# ORDER:\r\n\r\nToday the matter is moved for extension of interim order.\r\n\r\nDue to paucity of time, the same could not be taken up for consideration.\r\n\r\nPost on 21.03-2023.\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by four weeks.\r\n\r\nsd/-K. KASIRAO ACHARl //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT G!STRAR I SECTION OFFICEP`\r\n\r\n//\r\n\r\nTo,\r\n\r\n- 1.. The Vlll Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Gum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences rfagainst Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. Ei\r\n- 2. One CC to SRl. P RAJESH` BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n- 4. One spare copy\r\n\r\nNBR\r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\nHIGH COURT\r\n\r\nRC, J\r\n\r\nDATED: 14.03.2023\r\n\r\nPost ON 21.03.2023.\r\n\r\nORDER\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\nINTERIM ORDER EXTENDED\r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":301,"_263":302,"_265":303,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-20.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-20.md","## HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH\r\n\r\n## MAIN CASE NO.: **C.R.P.No.308 of 2022**\r\n\r\n## PROCEEDING SHEET\r\n\r\n| Sl. | Date | ORDER | OFFICE |\r\n|-----|------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|\r\n| No. | | | NOTE |\r\n| 11. | 14.03.2023 | RC,
J | |\r\n| | | Today the matter is moved for extension | |\r\n| | | of interim order. | |\r\n| | | Due to paucity of time, the same could | |\r\n| | | not be taken up for consideration. | |\r\n| | | Post on 21.03.2023. | |\r\n| | | Interim order granted earlier is extended | |\r\n| | | by four weeks. | |\r\n| | | ________
RC, J
SPP | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":305,"_263":306,"_265":307,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-21.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-21.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n..... Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, Market, Old Vegetable Hall Road, No.31-1-23, Town $r/o. Door$ Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n# ..... Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n#### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, $30.\\overline{06}.2022$ , $28.07.2022$ , $22.09, 2022$ , $23.11.2022$ , 21.12.2022 18.04.2022, 01.02.2023, 15.02.2023 & 14.03.2023 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following;\r\n\r\nORDER:\r\n\r\n\"List the matter on 04.07.2023.\r\n\r\nInterim order granted earlier is extended by ten (10) more weeks.\"\r\n\r\n## //TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\nSD/- A.VIJAYA BABU\r\n\r\nSECTION OFFICER\r\n\r\nA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\nTo,\r\n\r\nThe VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n\r\n3 One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n4. One spare copy $\\sqrt{4}$ \r\n\r\n $ksr$ \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\nHIGH COURT\r\n\r\nSRS, J\r\n\r\nDATED: 25.04.2023\r\n\r\nORDER\r\n\r\nList the matter on o4.07.2023.\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\nINTERIM ORDER EXTENDED\r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":309,"_263":310,"_265":311,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-22.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-22.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI**\r\n\r\n05\r\n\r\nMAIN CASE No.C.R.P. No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n| Sl.
No. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE |\r\n|------------|------------|------------------------------------------|----------------|\r\n| 17. | 07.08.2023 | BSB,
J | |\r\n| | | Heard the learned counsels appearing | |\r\n| | | for both parties. | |\r\n| | | For
further
hearing,
post
on | |\r\n| | | 14.08.2023. | |\r\n| | | Till then, interim order granted earlier | |\r\n| | | stands extended. | |\r\n| | | _______________________ | |\r\n| | | B.S.BHANUMATHI, J | |\r\n| | | BV | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**",{"_261":313,"_263":314,"_265":315,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-23.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-23.md","### lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMAR MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND iwi-ivrffty\\_£f§EfSSi1 .-PRESENT.- THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMTHl CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022 ~\r\n\r\n#### Betwee n :\r\n\r\n/\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, KotipaIIi Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, HI'ndu, aged 34 years, Busl-ness, Jeevan SrI' Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Dl®strict.\r\n\r\n## ..... Petl-tioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\nfobeh\\_=j\\*r#=-oe=,+3c;\r\n\r\n#### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprl'ses, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, I/o.Dcor No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, I/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. lyyapu Lavanya, w/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, I/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Marketl Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n## ..... Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndl'a High Court is filed Praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of-the Court of the Vlll AddI. District and Sessions Judge-cum-SPI, Court for Trail of Offences against women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n## uno: 1 OF\\_2Q22\r\n\r\nPetition under section 151 CPC is fl-led praying that in the circumstances stated I-n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim stay of all other proceedings of the suit in o.s.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the vlll Addl. District and sessions Judge¢um-Spl.Court for Trail 6f Offences against women, East Godavari DistrI'Ct, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of thl-s Hon'ble Court, pending dI'SPOSal Of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, 18.04.2022, 3O.06.2022, 28.07.2022, 22.09.2022, 23.ll.2022, 21.12.2022 o1.02.2023I 15.02.2023' 14.03.2023' 25.04.2023, 21.07.2023I 24.07.20231 31.07.2023 & 04.08.2023 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of sri p. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the petitI-Oner, and of Srl'. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following\r\n\r\n### ORDER:\r\n\r\n\"Heard the learned counsels appearing for both parties.\r\n\r\nFor further hearing, post on 14.08.2023.\r\n\r\nTill then, interim order granted earlier stands extended.\"\r\n\r\n### //TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\n**SECTION OFFICER** \r\n\r\nSd/- K. KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\n# To,\r\n\r\n- 1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n- 2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n- 4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**ER** \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\nBSB, J\r\n\r\nDATED: 07.08.2023\r\n\r\nPOST ON 14.08.2023\r\n\r\n**ORDER** \r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED** \r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":317,"_263":318,"_265":319,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-24.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-24.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI**\r\n\r\n01\r\n\r\nMAIN CASE No. C.R.P. No. 308 of 2022\r\n\r\n| Sl.
No. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE |\r\n|------------|------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------|\r\n| | 14.08.2023 | BSB,
J | |\r\n| | | Heard the learned counsels for both | |\r\n| | | parties. | |\r\n| | | Post on 24.08.2023 under the
caption | |\r\n| | | 'for pronouncement of orders'. | |\r\n| | | Till pronouncement of orders, interim | |\r\n| | | order granted earlier stands extended. | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | _______________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J | |\r\n| | | BV | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**",{"_261":321,"_263":322,"_265":323,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-25.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-25.md","# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATOR MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n## ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n#### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District CCCANDAS\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late)-Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, Old Vegetable Market. No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road. r/o.Door Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n# Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court is filed praying the Honourable Court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, S. Kunk est.\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\n### 国15. 出版的系统\r\n\r\n是最高点,可能。有地式的标准\r\n\r\n- Voule of Shi Dunga fri-\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{C}^{\\text{max}}_{\\text{max}}(\\mathcal{A})$ \r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of in a maxa, India Arts the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022, $30.06.2022, \\quad 28.07.2022, \\quad 22.09.2022, \\quad 23.11.2022,$ 21.12.2022 18.04.2022. $01.02.2023, \\quad 15.02.2023, \\quad 14.03.2023, \\quad 25.04.2023, \\quad 21.07.2023,$ 24.07.2023, 31.07.2023, 04.08.2023 & 07.08.2023 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondent No.2 & 3, the Court made the following\r\n\r\n1. 1. 1. 1. 1.\r\n\r\n**STATE ON THE RINCE AND** in the support is made when proceedings . In Autorise Baltice and Table\r\n\r\nORDER: State of an and an and an and an and an and an and an and an an an and an an an and an an an an an an an an an an an an an\r\n\r\n\"Heard the learned counsels for both parties. 中国一个一个中国的最低国政府的国际和国\r\n\r\nThe Control of Manufacture of the Control\r\n\r\nin integrate for the -1991 12 S.S. the Card\r\n\r\n1.1.1 数据的编辑中心的\r\n\r\n**HTRUE COPY//** \r\n\r\n**第二次第二十三十** \r\n\r\n一直是在国际中的中心\r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{E} = \\mathbb{E} \\left[ \\mathbb{E} \\left[ \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb{E} \\mathbb$ \r\n\r\nPost on 24.08.2023 under the caption 'for pronouncement of orders'.\r\n\r\nat a most going of the shoulder\r\n\r\nTill pronouncement of orders, interim order granted earlier stands (1) は、同意に対象の上述 extended.\" and the party of the party of\r\n\r\n一个理论的程序。 **Streams** freedom\r\n\r\n# Sd/- A. VENUGOPAL RAO **ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**\r\n\r\n**SECTION OFFICER** \r\n\r\n## To,\r\n\r\n1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trial of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n2. One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n\r\nthe third get the first algebra s in the British of STE STORY OF THE $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}_{\\mathcal{L}} = \\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}_{\\mathcal{L}} \\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}_{\\mathcal{L}} \\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}_{\\mathcal{L}}$ \r\n\r\n3. One CC to Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\nSan San 中國共產黨 A Bandhild Andrew **PROBABILITY** $\\label{eq:1} \\begin{aligned} \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} = \\frac{1}{2} \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}$ 1. 化二氯二甲酸 1. A. P.\r\n\r\nThe Alberta Store By\r\n\r\n一个身体的 \"我们是这个 The MARTINERY \r\n\r\nha VII and Had Sessions of which of analysis (Ea th Gelevier, Disting) THE REPORT OF THE WALLAST WAS DRIVEN T.V.S. Frallbakarkas when the \"Prints\" window that experien-\r\n\r\n4. One spare copy to under the class.\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{L}}$ ·北京中國和1915年 나는 나는 \r\n\r\nThe Contact and English States 中国中国的国家医内膜膜的有限的一个一个生活的网络金属的中华的东方一、工作研究。新國和蘇聯和中國 1. In Int. American program\r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\nHIGH COURT\r\n\r\n**BSBJ** \r\n\r\nDATED:14/08/2023\r\n\r\nPOST ON 24.08.2023 UNDER THE CAPTION 'FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS'\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} + \\mathcal{L} + \\mathcal{L}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}$ $\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{L})) = \\mathcal{L$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\math$ THE REPORT OF THE REPORT 国、新世纪、国际新闻进行\r\n\r\n**化压力压水管室** \r\n\r\n27、为的传说。\r\n\r\n. FISHER WE\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}^{\\text{max}}$ \r\n\r\n $\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\mathbb{$ \r\n\r\n到10年期中国中国中国生长的增长的特 matin and pulling\r\n\r\n> $\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{A}}(\\mathcal{A})\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{A}}(\\mathcal{A})\\mathcal{L}^{\\mathcal{A}}(\\mathcal{A})$ $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}$\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}$ \r\n\r\nin the grad gave see so,\r\n\r\n关系的创造程序。
1.1. 系统组织\r\n\r\n中国为国门口电压 **STATE AND SERVICE** $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L} \\mathcal{L}$ $\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{A}, \\mathcal{A}, \\mathcal{A}, \\mathcal{A})$ \r\n\r\n**PATTERS IN** Mari Avida 电电子医希腊 $\\mathcal{L} \\in \\mathcal{L} \\cap \\mathcal{L} \\cap \\mathcal{L}$ $\\label{eq:1} \\begin{aligned} \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} = \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} \\end{aligned}$ 医长角状骨 **SET DESCRIPTION** 高麗地名美国马克\r\n\r\n可以呼吸的\"呼吸\"。 ¹¹ 家格斯坦·波兰斯经一份本地计算法控制性\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M} \\times \\mathcal{M$ $\\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} = \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}} \\mathcal{L}_{\\text{max}}$ $\\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L} = \\mathcal{L}$ \r\n\r\nand the same first programme. en i en i teas da ketungan dagan\r\n\r\n2. 工作网络家中产品类\r\n\r\nORDER\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM ORDER EXTENDED.** \r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_7.jpeg)",{"_261":325,"_263":326,"_265":327,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-26.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-26.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH**\r\n\r\n## **MAIN CASE NO: C.R.P.No.308 of 2022 74**\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**\r\n\r\n| Sl.
No. | Date | ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE |\r\n|------------|------------|---------------------------------------|----------------|\r\n| 19 | 24.08.2023 | BSB, J | |\r\n| | | List the matter on 06.09.2023. | |\r\n| | | _________________
B.S.BHANUMATHI,J | |\r\n| | | NSM/NKA | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":329,"_263":330,"_265":331,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-27.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-27.md","## THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n## ORDER:\r\n\r\nThis revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the docket order dated 29.12.2021 in O.S. No. 207 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, by which the memorandum of understanding dt.01.08.2015 was held to require stamp duty and penalty for receiving it in evidence.\r\n\r\n 02. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.69,61,547/- with subsequent interest thereof @ 24% per annum. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm in which the defendants 2 and 3 are the partners. The defendant No. 2 is the husband of the defendant No. 3. The defendants own a premises bearing No. 36-3-4, Sai Krishna Theatre Road, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the defendants have been carrying their lodge business in the name and Style 'Aditya Palace'. The defendant No. 1, represented by the defendant No. 2 leased out the said property to the plaintiff under a registered lease deed dated 08.03.2013 for a period of nine years commencing from 01.03.2013. At the time of commencement of the lease, the plaintiff paid and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant as security under acknowledgement by the defendant under\r\n\r\nthe registered lease deed. The said amount is returnable without interest, at the termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff invested more than Rs.40,00,000/- for interiors, etc., in the premises leased out. The plaintiff regularly paid the rent. Since the defendants are carrying on their lodge in some part of the same premises, they utilized the services of the plaintiff's restaurant. The plaintiff paid an additional refundable advance of Rs.6,00,000/- on 09.03.2013 under two debit vouchers (each for Rs.3,00,000/-) issued by the defendant No.2 representing the defendant No. 1. The defendant No.1 started neglecting payment of bills to the plaintiff for the services taken. The plaintiff suffered immense loss in his business. The business was terminated prematurely and the plaintiff vacated the land. After due deliberations held between the husband of the Managing Partner of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, they concluded to determine the lease by the end of November 2015. On 01.08.2015 the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, recording the terms agreed on 30.07.2015. In terms thereof, the suit was filed.\r\n\r\n 03. The defendant No. 2 filed a written statement denying the suit claim. The defendants 1 and 3 adopted the same by filing a memo.\r\n\r\n 04. When the memorandum of understanding dt.01.08.2015 was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff, the defendants raised an\r\n\r\n2\r\n\r\nobjection to its admissibility in evidence on the ground that it requires stamp duty as well as registration. It was argued by the plaintiff that the document is a mere understanding reached between the plaintiff and defendants and therefore, the document can be received in evidence as per the provisions of the Stamp Act.\r\n\r\n 05. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty.\r\n\r\n06. The trial court came to the conclusion that the said document is not only an understanding to put an end to the earlier registered lease dt.08.03.2013 as well as the amounts mentioned therein to be paid by the party concerned, and therefore, accepted the contention of the defendants that the said document requires stamp duty and penalty.\r\n\r\n 07. Having been aggrieved by the same, the revision petition is filed.\r\n\r\n 08. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the document in question is only an understanding reached between the plaintiff and the defendants by reducing it into writing under the name and style of 'memorandum of understanding' and, therefore, it does not require any registration or stamp duty.\r\n\r\n 09. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the recitals in the document show that it is a bond and, therefore, the same shall be stamped considering it as a bond.\r\n\r\n 10. It is settled law by this Court in Bolisetti Bhavannarayana Vs Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant1 the nomenclature of the title used in a document is not final in deciding the nature of the document and that the contents of a document will decide its nature.\r\n\r\n 11. In the present case, there is a separate document of lease and by settling the disputes between the lessor and lessee, this document was executed by both parties, as per which the lessor agreed to pay to the lessee a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- which is refundable advance, Rs.11,10,000/- which is payable by the lessor to the lessee as food bills and further Rs.18,50,000/- towards value of fixtures and fittings. The said document was executed on a nonjudicial stamp worth Rs.50/-. Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines the word 'bond', which reads as under:\r\n\r\n\"Bond\" includes –\r\n\r\n(a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;\r\n\r\n1 1996(1) ALT 917\r\n\r\n- (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and\r\n- (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another;\r\n\r\n 12. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the present document does not fall within the said definition, as the document was signed by both parties, unlike an instrument of bond, which would be signed by only one party who undertakes to pay the same and, therefore, he contends that it is a mere agreement, which is covered by Article 6(A) Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.08.2015 i.e. the date of the document and so the maximum stamp duty payable on such document is Rs.100/-, if the amount mentioned therein exceeds Rs.50,000/- and therefore the deficit stamp duty of Rs.50/- with penalty would be paid.\r\n\r\n 13. The trial Court, though it stated that the document of memorandum of understanding requires stamp duty and penalty, without which the document cannot be received in evidence, has not specified under what provision of law the stamp duty is required so as to pay the amount of penalty. The relevant part of the order is as follows:\r\n\r\n \"On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties to the suit as well as the recitals of memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015, it shows not only the understanding reached between the plaintiff and the defendants by putting an end to their earlier registered lease deed dated 08.03.2013 as well as the amounts shown thereunder to be paid by the party to the concerned as well as the time for vacating the disputed premises would go to show that parties to the document concluded by way of understanding with regard to the dispute in between them. The recitals speak not only the understanding reached between both the parties as well as the final settlement or concluding contract in between them. In these circumstances, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants and the contention of the defendants that memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015 requires stamp duty and penalty is sustainable.\"\r\n\r\n 14. Thus, obviously, the order impugned in the revision suffers from irregularity. As such, the same needs to be modified by indicating the provision of law as per which, it is liable to be stamped.\r\n\r\n 15. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the definition of the term 'bond' is inclusive and not exclusive of the descriptions given in the definition, and therefore, the present document falls within the definition of 'bond'. If the document is a bond, the stamp duty payable is under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, whereas if the document is a mere\r\n\r\nagreement or memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided for, the relevant provision is Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act.\r\n\r\n 16. A reading of the contents of the document mentioned above would not attract Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act so as to call it a bond because the obligation to pay the money is not dependent on any condition.\r\n\r\n## Memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015\r\n\r\n \"It is agreed that the lessee shall vacate the leasehold premises subject to lease deed dated 08.03.2013 leaving fixtures and fittings by 30.11.2015 and the lessor to pay to the lessee a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards refundable advance, Rs.11,10,000/- towards food bills and Rs.18,50,000/- towards fixtures and fittings in addition to actual bill amounts from today onwards till 30.11.2015\".\r\n\r\n| Sd/- | Sd/- |\r\n|--------|--------|\r\n| Lessor | Lessee |\r\n\r\n 17. So, it does not fall within Clause (a) of Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act. Since the document is not attested by witness, it does not fall within Clauses (b) or (c) and moreover, no material referred to in Clause (c) is the subject matter of the document.\r\n\r\n 18. Therefore, in the present case, the document shall be treated as an instrument covered under Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. If so, the stamp duty is payable. As such, the document requires stamp duty of Rs.100/-, but as it is inscribed on a\r\n\r\nstamp worth Rs.50/- only, the deficit stamp duty has to be collected with penalty as per law.\r\n\r\n 18. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by modifying the docket order dated 29.12.2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, to the extent of adding the stamp duty and penalty as per Article 6(A) of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. There shall be no order as to costs.\r\n\r\n Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil Revision petition, shall stand closed.\r\n\r\n## \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J\r\n\r\nDt. 06-09-2023 BV/PNV",{"_261":333,"_263":334,"_265":335,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-28.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-28.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n## WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE\r\n\r\n### **PRESENT**\r\n\r\n## HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI\r\n\r\n## **CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 308 of 2022**\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01-8-2015 requires Stamp duty and penalty, thereby allowing the Revision, by calling for the records of the suit in O.S. No.207 of 2018.\r\n\r\n### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli
Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari\r\n\r\n### ...Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n### AND\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, $r$ /o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Market.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business. $r/o. Door$ No.31-1-23. Town Hall Road, Vegetable Old Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District Market.\r\n\r\n### ...Respondents/Defendants\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.\r\n\r\n**Counsel for the Petitioner** : Sri P Rajesh Babu\r\n\r\nCounsel for the Respondents : Sri T V S Prabhakara Rao\r\n\r\nThe Court made the following:\r\n\r\n![](_page_0_Picture_19.jpeg)\r\n\r\n# **THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.308 of 2022**\r\n\r\n### **ORDER:**\r\n\r\n*/*\r\n\r\nThis Constitution of India, challenging the docket order dated 29.12.2021 in O.S. No. 207 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional memorandum of understanding dt.01.08.2015 was held to require stamp duty and penalty for receiving it in evidence. District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, by which the revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the\r\n\r\n02. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents ¹ to 3 are the defendants. The plaintiff filed suit Rs.69,61,547/- with subsequent interest thereof @ 24% per annum. The 1st defendant is a partnership firm in which the defendants 2 and 3 are the partners. The defendant No. 2 is the husband of the defendant No. 3. The defendants own a premises bearing No. 36-3-4, Road, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the defendants have been carrying their lodge business in the name and Style 'Aditya Palace'. The defendant No. 1, represented by the registered lease deed dated 08.03.2013 for a period of nine years -commencing from 01.03.2013. At the time of commencement of the lease, the plaintiff paid and deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant as security under acknowledgement b^ the defendant under defendant No. 2 leased out the said property to the plaintiff under a for recovery of Sai Krishna Theatre\r\n\r\nCRP\\_308\\_2022 BSB, J\r\n\r\nthe registered lease deed. carrying on their lodge in some part of the utilized the services of the plaintiffs restaurant. The plaintiff suffered immense loss in his business. was After due deliberations held between the husband of the The business terminated prematurely and the plaintiff vacated the land. 1. The defendant No.l started neglecting payment of bills to the plaintiff for the services taken. Managing Partner of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, they concluded to determine the lease by the end of November 2015. The plaintiff paid an additional refundable advance of Rs.6,00,000/- on 09.03.2013 under two debit vouchers (each for Rs.3,00,000/-) issued by the defendant No.2 representing the defendant No. same premises, they On 01.08.2015^ the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding, recording the terms agreed on 30.07.2015. In terms thereof, the suit was filed. Since the defendants are The said amount is returnable without interest, at the termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff invested more than Rs.40,00,000/- for interiors, etc., in the premises leased out. The plaintiff regularly paid the rent.\r\n\r\n03. The defendant No. 2 filed memo. a written statement denying the suit claim. The defendants ¹ and 3 adopted the same by filing a\r\n\r\n04. When the memorandum of understanding dt.01.08.2015 was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff, the defendants raised an\r\n\r\n**2**\r\n\r\n**r**\r\n\r\nobjection to its admissibility in evidence on the ground that it requires stamp duty as well as registration. It the document is a mere understanding reached between the plaintiff evidence as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. and defendants - and therefore, the document can be received in was argued by the plaintiff that\r\n\r\n05. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty.\r\n\r\n06. The trial court came to the conclusion that the said document is not only registered lease dt.08.03.2013 as well as the amounts mentioned therein to be paid by the party concerned, and therefore, accepted the contention of the defendants that the said document requires stamp duty and penalty. an understanding to put an end to the earlier\r\n\r\n07. Having been aggrieved by the same, the revision petition is filed.\r\n\r\n08. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the document in question is only an understanding reached between the plaintiff and the defendants by reducing it into writing under the name and style of 'memorandum of understanding' and. therefore, it does not require any registration or stamp duty.\r\n\r\n**3**\r\n\r\n09. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the recitals in the document show that it is a bond and, therefore, the same shall be stamped considering it as a bond.\r\n\r\ndeciding the nature of the document and that the contents of a document will decide its nature. **Bolisetti Bhavannarayana Vs Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant** ^> the nomenclature of the title used in a document is not final in 10. It is settled law by this Court in\r\n\r\n11. In the present case, there is a separate document of lease this agreed to pay to the lessee refundable advance, Rs. 11,10,000/- which is payable by the lessor to food bills and further Rs. 18,50,000/- towards value of fixtures and fittings. judicial stamp worth Rs.50/-. Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines the word 'bond', which reads as under: the lessee as The said document was executed on a nona sum of Rs.9,00,000/- which is and by settling the disputes between the lessor and lessee, document was executed by both parties, as per which the lessor\r\n\r\n\"Bond\" includes -\r\n\r\njaj any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;\r\n\r\n4\r\n\r\n- (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and\r\n- (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another;\r\n\r\n12. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the present document does not fall within the said instrument of bond, which would be signed by only one party who undertakes to pay the same and, therefore, he contends that it is a mere agreement, which is covered by Article 6(A) Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh 01.08.2015 i.e. the date of the document and so the maximum stamp duty payable on such document is Rs. 100/-, if the amount mentioned therein exceeds Rs.50,000/- and therefore the deficit stamp duty of Rs.50/- with penalty would be paid. definition, as the document was signed by both parties, unlike an as on\r\n\r\n13. The trial Court, though it stated that the document of memorandum of understanding requires stamp duty and penalty. without which the document cannot be received in evidence, has not specified under what provision of law the stamp duty is required so as to pay the amount of penalty. The relevant part of the order is as follows:\r\n\r\n\"On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties to the suit as well as the recitals of memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015, it shows not only the understanding reached between the plaintiff and the defendants by putting an end to their earlier registered lease deed dated 08.03.2013 as well as the amounts shown thereunder to be paid by the party to the concerned as well as the time for vacating the disputed premises would go to show that parties to the document concluded by way of understanding with regard to the dispute in between them. The recitals speak not only the understanding reached between both the parties as well as the final settlement or concluding contract in between them. In these circumstances, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants and the contention of the defendants that memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015 requires stamp duty and penalty is sustainable.\"\r\n\r\n14. Thus, obviously, the order impugned in the revision suffers from irregularity. As such, the same needs to be modified by indicating the provision of law as per which, it is liable to be stamped.\r\n\r\n15. respondents that the definition of the term 'bond' is inclusive and not exclusive of the descriptions given in the definition, and therefore, the present document falls within the definition of 'bond'. If the document is a bond, the stamp duty payable is under Article 13 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, whereas if the document i^ a mere It is the argument of the learned counsel for the agreement or memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided for, the relevant provision is Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act.\r\n\r\n16. A reading of the contents of the document mentioned above would not attract Clauses (a) to (c) of Section $2(5)$ of the Stamp Act so as to call it a bond because the obligation to pay the money is not dependent on any condition.\r\n\r\n#### Memorandum of understanding dated 01.08.2015\r\n\r\n\"It is agreed that the lessee shall vacate the leasehold premises subject to lease deed dated 08.03.2013 leaving fixtures and fittings by 30.11.2015 and the lessor to pay to the lessee a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards refundable advance, $Rs.11,10,000/$ towards food bills and Rs.18,50,000/- towards fixtures and fittings in addition to actual bill amounts from today onwards till 30.11.2015\".\r\n\r\n| $Sd/-$ | $Sd/-$ |\r\n|--------|--------|\r\n| Lessor | Lessee |\r\n\r\nSo, it does not fall within Clause (a) of Section 2(5) of the 17. Stamp Act. Since the document is not attested by witness, it does not fall within Clauses (b) or (c) and moreover, no material referred to in Clause (c) is the subject matter of the document.\r\n\r\n18. Therefore, in the present case, the document shall be treated as an instrument covered under Article $6(A)$ of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. If so, the stamp duty is payable. As such, the document requires stamp duty of Rs.100/-, but as it is inscribed on a\r\n\r\nStamp worth Rs.50/- only, the deficit stamp duty has to be collected with penalty as per law.\r\n\r\n18. as per Article 6(A) of In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by modifying the docket order dated 29.12.2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, to the extent of adding the stamp duty and penalty Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act. There shall be no order as to costs.\r\n\r\nMiscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil Revision petition, shall stand closed.\r\n\r\n### **SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**\r\n\r\n### **//TRUE COPY//**\r\n\r\n### **SECTION OFFICER**\r\n\r\n- of Offences against Women, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 1. The Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trail\r\n- 2. One CC to Sri P Rajesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 3. One CC to Sri T V S Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]\r\n- 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.\r\n- 5. Three CD Copies\r\n\r\nTK\r\n\r\nTo\r\n\r\nPRK\r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT**\r\n\r\n# **DATED;06/09/2023**\r\n\r\n## **ORDER**\r\n\r\n## **CRP.No.308 of 2022**\r\n\r\n![](_page_9_Picture_4.jpeg)\r\n\r\n![](_page_9_Picture_5.jpeg)\r\n\r\n*f*\r\n\r\n## **ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION**",{"_261":337,"_263":338,"_265":339,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-3.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-3.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI**\r\n\r\n## MAIN CASE No: C.R.P.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**\r\n\r\n| SI.
$\\boldsymbol{\\mathsf{No}}$ | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE. |\r\n|-----------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|\r\n| $\\mathsf{2}$ | 28.03.2022 | NJS, J | |\r\n| | | At the request of Mr. T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, | |\r\n| | | learned counsel for the respondents, list this case
after three (3) weeks. | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | NJS, J | |\r\n| | | $\\mathsf{BLV}\\,$ | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":341,"_263":342,"_265":343,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-4.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-4.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI**\r\n\r\n## **MAIN CASE No: C.R.P No.308 of 2022**\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**\r\n\r\n| SL. | DATE | ORDER | OFFICE |\r\n|-----------|------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|\r\n| NO.
3. | 18.04.2022 | NJS, J | NOTE |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | At the request made by Mr.T.V.S.Prabhakar | |\r\n| | | Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, list this | |\r\n| | | matter on 15.06.2022. | |\r\n| | | Interim
orders
granted
on
the
earlier | |\r\n| | | occasion are extended till 30.06.2022. | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | ______
NJS, J | |\r\n| | | IS | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":345,"_263":346,"_265":347,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-5.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-5.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n## MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n#### **Between:**\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n..... Petitioner\r\n\r\n## **AND**\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rai Amahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District/\r\n\r\n# ..... Respondents\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court may be pleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Offences against Women, **East** Godavari **Trail** of District, Rajamahendravaram, that the Memorandum of Understanding dt.01-8- 2015 requires Stamp duty and penalty, thereby allowing the Revision, by calling for the records of the suit in O.S. No.207 of 2018 and grant such other relief or reliefs.\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the order of the High Court order dated 21.02.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner the Court made the following.\r\n\r\n#### **ORDER:**\r\n\r\nAt the request made by Mr. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, list this matter on 15.06.2022\r\n\r\nInterim orders granted on the earlier occasion are extended till 30.06.2022.\r\n\r\n//TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\n $\\mathbf{F}$ \r\n\r\nSd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR\r\n\r\n- One CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n One spare copy
nbr\r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\n**HIGH COURT** \r\n\r\n**NJSJ** \r\n\r\nDATED:18.04.2022\r\n\r\n# LIST THE MATTER ON 15.06.2022\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n**INTERIM order extended** \r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg)",{"_261":349,"_263":350,"_265":351,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-6.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-6.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI**\r\n\r\n## **MAIN CASE No.:C.R.P.No.635 of 2022**\r\n\r\n## **PROCEEDING SHEET**\r\n\r\n| Sl.
No | DATE | ORDER | |\r\n|-----------|------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|\r\n| 13 | 30.06.2022 | DEV, J | |\r\n| | | Interim
order
granted
earlier
shall
stand | |\r\n| | | extended for a further period of six (6) weeks. | |\r\n| | | Post the matter on 28.07.2022. | |\r\n| | | ___________ | |\r\n| | | DEV, J
KLPD | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":353,"_263":354,"_265":355,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-7.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-7.md","# IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\n## THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND **CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022**\r\n\r\n#### **Between:**\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n..... Petitioner\r\n\r\n### **AND**\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, lyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj Amahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n#### ..... Respondents\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court, praying the honourable court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl, Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, that the Memorandum of Understanding dt.01-8- 2015 requires Stamp duty and penalty.\r\n\r\n### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the order of the High Court order dated 21.02.2022 & 18.04.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner the Court made the following.\r\n\r\n#### **ORDER:**\r\n\r\n\"Interim order granted earlier shall stand extended for a further period of $six$ (6) weeks.\r\n\r\nPost the matter on 28.07.2022\".\r\n\r\n//TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\n**SD/ B.Narasinga Rao DEPUTY REGISTRAR** \r\n\r\nFor DEPUTY REGISTRAR\r\n\r\nOne CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\n One spare copy\r\n\r\nKN\r\n\r\n $\\mathsf{To}$ \r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\n# **HIGH COURT**\r\n\r\n $\\mathsf{DEV},\\,\\mathsf{J}$ \r\n\r\nDATED: 30.06.2022\r\n\r\nPost the matter on 28.07.2022\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\nMy marine\r\n\r\nINTERIM ORDER EXTENDED\r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg)",{"_261":357,"_263":358,"_265":359,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-8.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-8.md","## **HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATHI**\r\n\r\n## CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.308 OF 2022\r\n\r\n## PROCEEDING SHEET\r\n\r\n| $S1.$
$\\mathbf{No.}$ | $\\boldsymbol{\\text{DATE}}$ | ORDER | OFFICE
NOTE |\r\n|-------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------|\r\n| 05. | $28.07.2022\\\\$ | $\\underline{\\textbf{DEV, J}}:$ | |\r\n| | | Interim stay, granted earlier, is | |\r\n| | | extended for a further period of eight (8) | |\r\n| | | weeks. | |\r\n| | | Post the matter on $08.09.2022$ . | |\r\n| | | $DEV, J$ | |\r\n| | | $\\operatorname{\\mathsf{Dsh}}$ | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |\r\n| | | | |",{"_261":361,"_263":362,"_265":363,"_267":-5},"APHC010065202022-order-9.pdf","APHC010065202022-order-9.md","## IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI\r\n\r\nTHURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY\r\n\r\n# **TWO**\r\n\r\n### :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 308 OF 2022\r\n\r\n#### Between:\r\n\r\nM/s.Angeethi's Restaurant, A Regd. Firm, rep. by its Managing Partner, Kotipalli Swathi, Wife of Sri Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 34 years, Business, Jeevan Sri Tripura Plaza, D.No.4-437/2, Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n\r\n#### **.....** Petitioner/Plaintiff\r\n\r\n### **AND**\r\n\r\n- 1. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/o.(Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 2. Iyyapu Madhava Rao, S/ o. (Late) Kumarao, Hindu, aged 55 years, Business, $r/o. Door$ No.31-1-23. Town Hall Road, Old **Vegetable** Market. Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.\r\n- 3. Iyyapu Lavanya, W/o.Madhava Rao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, r/o.Door No.31-1-23, Town Hall Road, Old Vegetable Market, Raj amahendravaram, East Godavari District\r\n\r\n#### **..... Respondents/Defendants**\r\n\r\nPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India High Court, praying the honourable court to allow the revision by setting-aside the Order passed on 29-12-2021 in O.S. No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Spl. Rajamahendravaram, that the Memorandum of Understanding dt.01-8- 2015 requires Stamp duty and penalty thereby allowing the Revision by calling for the records of the suit in OS No. 207/2018.\r\n\r\n#### IA NO: 1 OF 2022\r\n\r\nPetition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant Interim Stay of all other proceedings of the suit in O.S.No.207 of 2018 of the Court of the VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, until further orders of this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of CRP No. 308 of 2022, on the file of the High Court.\r\n\r\nThe petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and memorandum of grounds and the orders of the High Court dated 21.02.2022,18.04.2022 & 30.06.2022 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. RAJESH BABU Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri. T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, for the Respondents, the Court made the following.\r\n\r\n#### **ORDER:**\r\n\r\n\"Interim stay, granted earlier is extended for a further period of eight (8) weeks.\r\n\r\n//TRUE COPY//\r\n\r\nPost the matter on 08.09.2022.\r\n\r\nSd/- G. SRINIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR For SECTION OFFICER\r\n\r\n1. The VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.Court for Trail of Offences against Women, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram,\r\nOne CC to SRI. P RAJESH BABU Advocate [OPUC]\r\nOne CC to Sri. T.V.S., Prabhakar Rao, Advocate (OPUC)\r\n\r\n4. One spare copy\r\n\r\n**NBR** \r\n\r\nTo\r\n\r\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\r\n\r\n## **HIGH COURT**\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{A}$ \r\n\r\nDEV, J\r\n\r\nDATED: 28.07.2022\r\n\r\nPost the matter on 08.09.2022\r\n\r\nCRP.No.308 of 2022\r\n\r\n $\\mathcal{L}^{-1}$ \r\n\r\nINTERIM ORDER EXTENDED\r\n\r\n![](_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg)","descriptions",{"_366":367,"_370":371},"enumFields",[189,191,184,23,368,369],"caseCategory","benchType","enumLookup",{"_189":372,"_191":374,"_184":376,"_23":378,"_368":380,"_369":381},{"_190":373},"Civil Revision Petition",{"_192":375},"Dismissed",{"_183":377},"High Court of Andhra Pradesh",{"_24":379},"Unknown Section",{},{},"caseAiAnalysis","order","order-6","actionData","errors"]

Angeethi'S Restaurant vs. Sri Lakshmi Balaji Enterprises

AI Summary

Order Issued After Hearing

Original Order Copy

Order Text

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.:C.R.P.No.635 of 2022

PROCEEDING SHEET

Share This Order

Order(27) - 6 Sept 2023

Order(28) - 6 Sept 2023

Order(26) - 24 Aug 2023

Order(24) - 14 Aug 2023

Order(25) - 14 Aug 2023

Order(22) - 7 Aug 2023

Order(23) - 7 Aug 2023

Order(21) - 25 Apr 2023

Order(19) - 14 Mar 2023

Order(20) - 14 Mar 2023

Order(17) - 15 Feb 2023

Order(18) - 15 Feb 2023

Order(14) - 1 Feb 2023

Order(15) - 1 Feb 2023

Order(16) - 1 Feb 2023

Order(12) - 21 Dec 2022

Order(13) - 21 Dec 2022

Order(11) - 23 Nov 2022

Order(10) - 22 Sept 2022

Order(8) - 28 Jul 2022

Order(9) - 28 Jul 2022

Order(6) - 30 Jun 2022

Order(7) - 30 Jun 2022

Order(4) - 18 Apr 2022

Order(5) - 18 Apr 2022

Order(3) - 28 Mar 2022

Order(1) - 21 Feb 2022

Order(2) - 21 Feb 2022

Same Parties

Lawyers

Judges

Acts & Sections

Search in District Courts Data