BEFORE THE TELANGANS STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COIMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD

RP No. 15/2015

In

I.A. No. 276 of 2013

In

C.C.No. 690 of 2012

On the file of District Forum I, Hyderabad

Between :

M/s. Sriven Developments, D.No. 3-6-131/1, Street no. 18,

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad,rep. by its Authorized Signatory                …       

Revision petitioner

And

1. Sri Kalyanam Srinivas, S/o Rajaiah,

Aged about 42 years, Occ : Employee

R/o H No. 3-2-59, Sri Chaitanya colony

Manikonda Jagir village, Puppalaguda village,

Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R. R. District

Hyderabad – 500 089.

2. Sri C. Kashinath, S/o Sambaiah, aged about 57 years, Occ: Business

R/o H.No. 3-6-12, Flat No. 101, Srinivasa Towers,Street no. 8,

Himayatnagar Hyderabad – 500 029.

3. Sri Sainath Residency Plot Owners Association

Rep. by its President/Secretary, Red office at # 204,

Sri Sai Towers, SBI Colony, New Bakaram, Gandhinagar,

Hyderabad – 80                                                                    ..Respondents

            (implead party)

Counsel for the Revision Petitioners                   :           M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates

Counsel for the Respondents                               :           Admission stage.

Coram :          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

Wednesday, the Tenth Day of February

TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN

                                             Oral order: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                                                                     *******

1. This is a Revision Petition filed  U/s. 17(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to allow the Revision Petition and to set aside the orders passed in  IA No. 276 of 2013 in CC No. 690 of 2012 dated .24.11.2014 on the file of the District Forum I, Hyderabad and allow the petition filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and to implead Sri Sainath Residency Pot owners Association as opposite party no.3 in the above CC.

2. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is present. He has filed Memo at the admission stage itself stating that the matter is settled by and between the parties out of Court and the claim of the complainant  is fulfilled to his full satisfaction as all the  dues were paid to him towards full and final satisfaction, as such, no claim of the complainant as against the opposite parties remains to be fulfilled and hence  it is prayed that the memo may be recorded and the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Revision Petition. In view of the same, the petitioner is  permitted to withdraw the Revision Petition and the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

                                                                                                            PRESIDENT