Sri. M. Balram vs Smt Dundumulla Amrutha alias Nagireddy Amruthamma — CRP/1488/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HBHC010342332026

Filing Number

CRP/24972/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

CRP/1488/2026

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

Constitution of India Section 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sri. M. Balram

    Adv. AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Smt Dundumulla Amrutha alias Nagireddy Amruthamma

  2. 2.Sri. Nagireddy Narender Reddy

  3. 3.Smt. Nagireddy Vasantha

  4. 4.Smt. Nagireddy Sheela

  5. 5.Sri. Nagireddy Satish Reddy

  6. 6.Smt. Nagireddy Radhika

  7. 7.Smt. Nagireddy Suvarna

  8. 8.Sri. Nagireddy Vikram Reddy

  9. 9.Nagireddy Swetha

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    G.M. MohiuddinView PDF

    Summary of CRP 1488/2026 The Telangana High Court disposed of two connected civil revision petitions by directing the trial court to hear interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 71/2025, 462/2026, and 417/2026) on 22.05.2026 without requiring formal counters to advancement applications. The court found merit in Balram's argument that the trial court erred in delaying these urgent matters and that the plaintiff's compromise settlement reduced the equitable justification for the existing status quo order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    For Admission

    G.M. Mohiuddin

  4. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP/1488/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CRP 1488/2026 The Telangana High Court disposed of two connected civil revision petitions by directing the trial court to hear interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 71/2025, 462/2026, and 417/2026) on 22.05.2026 without requiring formal counters to advancement applications. The court found merit in Balram's argument that the trial court erred in delaying these urgent matters and that the plaintiff's compromise settlement reduced the equitable justification for the existing status quo order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case