Sri. M. Balram vs Smt Dundumulla Amrutha alias Nagireddy Amruthamma — CRP/1487/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th May 2026.
CNR: HBHC010342312026
Filing Number
CRP/24970/2026
Filing Date
14-May-2026
Registration No
CRP/1487/2026
Registration Date
14-May-2026
Judge
G.M. Mohiuddin
Coram
G.M. Mohiuddin
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CRP ( 9 )
Sub-Category
ARTICLE 227 ( 7 )
Judicial Branch
CIVIL Section
Decision Date
15-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sri. M. Balram
Adv. AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Smt Dundumulla Amrutha alias Nagireddy Amruthamma
-
2.Sri. Nagireddy Narender Reddy
-
3.Smt. Nagiready Vasantha
-
4.Smt. Nagireddy Sheela
-
5.Sri. Nagireddy Satish Reddy
-
6.Smt. Nagireddy Radhika
-
7.Smt. Nagireddy Suvarna
-
8.Sri. Nagireddy Vikram Reddy
-
9.Nagireddy Swetha
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-May-2026
G.M. MohiuddinView PDF
Summary of CRP No. 1487/2026 The High Court of Telangana disposed of two connected Civil Revision Petitions filed by M. Balram challenging interlocutory orders in a property dispute. The court directed the trial court to hear pending applications (IA No. 71 of 2025, IA No. 462 of 2026, and IA No. 417 of 2026) on 22.05.2026 without requiring formal counters to advancement applications, recognizing the petitioner's substantial investments in property development and the plaintiff's agreement to compromise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-May-2026
For Admission
G.M. Mohiuddin
-
14-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CRP/1487/2026
Summary of CRP No. 1487/2026 The High Court of Telangana disposed of two connected Civil Revision Petitions filed by M. Balram challenging interlocutory orders in a property dispute. The court directed the trial court to hear pending applications (IA No. 71 of 2025, IA No. 462 of 2026, and IA No. 417 of 2026) on 22.05.2026 without requiring formal counters to advancement applications, recognizing the petitioner's substantial investments in property development and the plaintiff's agreement to compromise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts