Presenting No. 14 of 2010. First appeal under Section 96 CPC against a civil court decree. The appellants failed to appear or file representation and did not submit proof of service of personal notice to the respondent over multiple reminders. The High Court dismissed the appeal for default.
The appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
/
fsV'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI^
SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ifCTs
SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 14 OF 2010
Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the decree and judgment dated 01-05-2009 in O.S.No. 9 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District.
Between:
(Being Minor, is under the care and protection of her mother i.e., 10*^ Appellant Rehana, W/o. Late Mohammed Aslam, aged about 40 years, Muslim, Occ: Houswife, R/o. Bellary.)
(R-2 is transposed as IZ**’ Appellant in the appeal as per C.O. dt:29-32010 made in ASMP-519/10.)
...APPELLANTS
AND
Rajendra Desai, S/o. Devashayam, Hindu, Occ: Teacher, R/o. 5/147 Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant Nos. 1 to 11: SRI. K SOMA KONDA REDDY Counsel for the Appellant No. 12: SRI. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR
The Court made the following Order:
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR.V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT No. 14 of 2010
JUDGMENT :
- O.S.No.09 of 2004 is a suit filed for recovery of money. After due contest by Judgment dated 01.05.2009 learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni decreed the suitinfavour of the plaintiff.
As could be seen from the decree there are 12 defendants as Defendant No.l to Defendant No. 12. As the things stood now, all those defendants are appellantsin this first appeal. Thus there is only one respondent,whois the plaintiff in the suit.
- No representation for the appellants. Proceeding sheet would indicate that on 14.08.2023 Court ordered appellants to take out personal notice to respondentNo.l and file proof of service. Registry endorsement indicatesno such proof of service is filed. In fact, that was notthefirst occasion and on 19.06.2023 also it was there in the same way and on all the earlier occasions despite indulgenceof
2
the Court to file proof of services for all these years nothing was filed. And successfully on all the four occasions preceding this day there has been no representation for appellants. Today there is no representation for appellants.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stand closed.
- Now, Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for
appellant No. 12 alone is present.
SD/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
^/SECTION OFFICER
To
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/12/2023
ORDER
AS.No.14 of 2010
D5L-
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed on merits given the failure of the appellants to file proof of service of personal notice.
N. S. Basheer Ahmed
Rajendra Desai
V R K Krupa Sagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
