The appellants filed an appeal challenging the vacation of a temporary injunction. As there was no representation for the appellants, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for want of prosecution.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
SATURDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NQ: 2 OF 2Q0fi
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, aggrieved by the common order dated 13-11-2007 passed in (A.No.770 of 2005 and IA.NO.5085/2005 in OS.No.10/2005 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Krishna District at Vijayawada.
Between:
student, 8th class, R/o Beside Ujala Godown Ilird Cross J.D.nagar,
Patamata, Vijayaswada-520 010 Rep.by her mother Smt. C.Sudha
Nageswari.
...Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND
R/o # 67-8-13, N.S M. Public School Road, Patamata ,
%
Vijayawada -10.
Vijayawada-10.
...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2008rCMAMP. NO: 12 OF 2nn«)
Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased grant an ad interim injunction against the Respondents no. 9,10,11,12 and 1 injuncting said Respondents from alienating the said Schedule properties to any third parties, pending disposal of the CMA.
Counsel for the Appellant; Sri. K Ravinder Reddy - no representation
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6,7,8 : Sri K S Murthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.12: Sri K B Ramanna Dora
Counsel for the Respondent No.13: Sri Pasala Ponna Rao Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 14, 18 : Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy The Court made the following:
[3470]
APHC010259902008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
sS-S
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2/2008
Between:
Kum. C. Prathyusha And Another and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Govindaraju Venkatasesha Sri Kumar And 17 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1.K RAVINDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.KS MURTHY
2.M SRIKANTH REDDY
\
3.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
4.K B RAMANNA DORA
5.PASALA PONNA RAO
The Court made the following:
if
JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
This appeal was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs/appellants were granted temporary injunction in O.S.No.10 of 2005 filed by them in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Later on the temporary injunction was vacated by an order dated 13.11.2007. Challenging the said order, the present appeal wasfiled.
- There is no representation for the appellants. 3. The matter pertains to the year 2008 and has been listed under the caption ‘specially identified cases’.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR /■ SECTION OFFICER
Stu sree
HIGH COURT DATED:20/07/2024
-I
JUDGMENT CMA.No.2 of 2008
O'-
#'-•
uo L R SFP 202^* COn?}}
★5
DISMISSING THE CMA FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the appellants?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kum. C. Prathyusha
Smt. C.Sudha Nageswari
Govindaraju Venkatasesha Sri Kumar
G.Jaya Kumari
Smt. N.Sasi Bala
Kum. N.Pranavi
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
