TIRUMALA SUNDARA J.C. NATH vs KOTTAM AYYANNA — CRP/1583/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 11th June 2026.
CNR: APHC010283462026
Filing Number
CRP/22650/2026
Filing Date
21-May-2026
Registration No
CRP/1583/2026
Registration Date
21-May-2026
Judge
Subba Reddy Satti
Coram
Subba Reddy Satti
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRP ( 9 )
Sub-Category
ARTICLE 227 ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL Section
Decision Date
11-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 13-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TIRUMALA SUNDARA J.C. NATH
Adv. VARUN BYREDDY
Respondent(s)
-
1.KOTTAM AYYANNA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Jun-2026
Subba Reddy SattiView PDF
Case Summary: CRP/1583/2026 Tirumala Sundara J.C. Nath v. Kottam Ayyanna The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the trial court's docket order adjourning an ad-interim injunction application (I.A. No. 294 of 2026) by two months while ordering urgent notice. Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that adjourn injunction applications beyond 15 days after ordering urgent notice is illegal and defeats the purpose of such relief. The Court directed the trial court to re-advance the hearing expeditiously and mandated that injunction applications ordered with urgent notice should be decided within 10-15 days maximum, establishing judicial guidelines to prevent delay-based injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Jun-2026
For Admission (Crp Matters)
Subba Reddy Satti
-
04-Jun-2026
Subba Reddy SattiView PDF
-
04-Jun-2026
Subba Reddy SattiView PDF
-
04-Jun-2026
For Admission (Crp Matters)
Tuhin Kumar Gedela
-
28-May-2026
Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF
-
28-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRP/1583/2026
Case Summary: CRP/1583/2026 Tirumala Sundara J.C. Nath v. Kottam Ayyanna The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the trial court's docket order adjourning an ad-interim injunction application (I.A. No. 294 of 2026) by two months while ordering urgent notice. Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that adjourn injunction applications beyond 15 days after ordering urgent notice is illegal and defeats the purpose of such relief. The Court directed the trial court to re-advance the hearing expeditiously and mandated that injunction applications ordered with urgent notice should be decided within 10-15 days maximum, establishing judicial guidelines to prevent delay-based injustice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts