Does Dismissal of a Civil Revision Petition Without Costs by the High Court for State of Telangana Create Substantive Precedent on Questions of Law?

The High Court for the State of Telangana disposed of CRP No.2241 of 2025 without awarding costs, addressing no substantive legal issues nor altering existing precedent; the judgment carries no binding precedential value and functions only as a disposition on facts, offering no new clarification or change for the wider legal community.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name CRP/2241/2025 of Smt. Mumtaz Jahan Vs Mohammed Shafi
CNR HBHC010355482025
Date of Registration 04-07-2025
Decision Date 31-10-2025
Disposal Nature DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Judgment Author P. SAM KOSHY
Court High Court for State of Telangana
Precedent Value Not precedential; disposed on facts; no substantive legal principle decided.
Bench Single Judge (P. SAM KOSHY)

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On None. No binding legal principle laid down.
Persuasive For None. No persuasive or ratio decidendi established for reference.

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • The judgment merely disposes of the civil revision petition without costs and offers no legal reasoning or principle.
  • No change, clarification, or new guidance for lawyers or lower courts arises from this judgment.
  • The case should not be cited for any authoritative legal position, precedent, or principle.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The court issued an order disposing of the civil revision petition with no costs.
  • No reasoning, legal principles, statute interpretation, or reliance on prior judgments is recorded in the available order.
  • No ratio decidendi or legal proposition has been advanced or clarified.
  • The order relates solely to the disposition of the particular parties’ cause.

Factual Background

  • The matter was a civil revision petition (CRP No.2241 of 2025) between Smt. Mumtaz Jahan and Mohammed Shafi before the High Court for the State of Telangana.
  • The judgment/order sheet notes only the appearance of counsel for both sides.
  • No further factual recitation, context, or background is provided in the available record.

Alert Indicators

  • Precedent Followed – No new law, ratio, or overruling; the court has simply disposed of the petition as per ordinary procedure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.