Disposed

Madiki Rajeswara Dayal v. Nidadavolu Sai Ram

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Oct 2022SA/95/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant vacated the suit premises and surrendered possession to the respondent during the pendency of the second appeal. Consequently, the High Court closed the appeal with no order as to costs and directed pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.

Madiki Rajeswara Dayal Vs Nidadavolu Sai Ram — Andhra Pradesh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 95 OF 2022

¶7

Appeal Under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 1S.12.2021 made in A.S.No.187 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. Preferred against the Decree in O.S.No.338 of 2013 Dated 18.08.2016 on the file of the.Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada

¶8

Between:

¶9

Madiki Rajeswara Dayal, S/o Late Sri Chandra Rao, Hindu, age 49 years, Occ Private Teacher, R/o Door No 68-8-1/3A, Opp Durga Temple, Ashok Nagar Kakindada-533003, East Godavari District

¶10

...Appellant/AppellantZDefendant

¶11

AND

¶12

Nidadavolu Sai Ram, S/o Late Sri Bhaskara Rao, R/o Anjanadri Apartments, Opp Veterinary Hospital, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada-533006, East Godavari District

¶13

...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI. N SIVA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P VIVEK

¶16

The Court made the following: Judgment

¶17

S'-

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶19

SECOND APPEAL No.95 of 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT:-

¶21

Defendant filed the above Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021 in A.S.No.l87 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2016 in O.S.No.338 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

¶22

2. O.S.No.338 of 2013 filed by plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant from the schedule property was decreed by trial Court and the same was confirmed by appellate Court.

¶23

Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant /defendant would submit that after the judgment was pronounced in A.S.No.l87 of 2016 and pending the above second appeal, the appellant / defendant vacated the schedule premises and surrendered the possession to the plaintiff/ respondent in E.P proceedings. Hence, the appellant is not interested to prosecute the same. 4. Recording the above submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal as he vacated the premises and handed over the

¶24

¶25

4
same to the land owner/ plaintiff, no further orders are
required in this appeal.
5. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is closed. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
SD/- K. TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISJrXr
//TRUE COPY//
^ECTION^ICER
To,
5,8 gssa?,
6 I^wo cTd CopSs ^'9h Court of A.P at Amaravathi
sree

¶26

¶27

HIGH COURT

¶28

DATED: 11/10/2022

¶29

ORDER

¶30

SA.No.95 of 2022

¶31

I 2 1 2 AUG 2023 g)
niirront Current Socfinn Section .

¶32

CLOSING THE SECOND APPEAL

¶33

(

Madiki Rajeswara Dayal v. Nidadavolu Sai Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madiki Rajeswara Dayal v. Nidadavolu Sai Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uppe Ravi Vs Kaneti Bangaraiah

B.Lakshmana Swamy, Vs K.B.Ravindranath

Smt. N. Jhansivani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gadamsetty Damodara Rao Vs Gurram Subbarao

Kothakota Saddam Hussain, Vs The State of Ap

A. Punnaiah Vs Union of India