Single Bench dismissed two civil miscellaneous second appeals (CMSA No. 14/2022 and 15/2022) for default. The appeals were listed for dismissal, but the appellant failed to file representation on the posted date despite multiple postings.
Appeals 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 14 & 15 OF 2022
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 14 OF 2022
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, AggrievedbytheJudgment and decree in A.S.No.47/2011, dt.17-11-2011 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA)Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.43/2009 in E.P.No.12/2008 in O.S.No.96/2005 DT. 11-3-201 Ion the file of the Civil (Junior Division) Judge, at Kottavalasa.
Between:
Nirujogi Tata, S/o. Ammathalli, aged 47 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Singari Village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District
...APPELLANT / APPELLANT / CLAIM PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / DECREE HOLDER
/ *>•
N \
...RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(CMSAMP. NO: 71 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in EP.No. 12 of 2008 in OS.No. 96 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Kottavalasa pending disposal of the SA in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Appellant : SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : SRI A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5 : SRI KETHVATHU PARVATHI BAI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 15 OF 2022
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.46/2011, dt.17-11-2011 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs 85 S.Ts (PGA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge; Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.44/2009 in E.P.No.13/2008 in O.S.No.97/2005 on the file of the Civil (Junior Division) Judge, at Kottavalasa,
Between:
Nirujogi Tata, S/o. Ammathalli, aged 47 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Singari Village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER
...RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
LA. NO: 3 OF 2012(CMSAMP. NO: 69 OF 201?)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in EP.no. 13 of 2008 in Os.no. 97 of 2005 on the file of the Civil (Junior Division) Judge, at Kottavalasa, pending disposal of the SA in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Appellant :SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : SRI A S C BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5 : SRI KETHVATHU PARVATHI BAI
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER ;
APHC011552262012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 15/2022
Between: Nirujogi Tata
...APPELLANT
AND
Nirujogi Appalanarasamma and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.PNAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ASCBOSE
AND
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO: 14/2022
Between:
Nirujogi Tata
...APPELLANT
AND
Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana
...RESPONDENT(S)
And 4 Ors and Others
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.KETHVATHU PARVATHI BAI
2.AS CBOSE
BSB, \ C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of20k^
The Court made the following:
COMMONJUDGMENT!
C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2022
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC by Nirujogi Tata/appellant/claim petitioner against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.47 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.43 of 2009 in E.P.No.12 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2005 dated 11.03.2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Kottavalasa.
C.M.S.A.No.15 of 202?
This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC by Nirujogi Tata/appellant/claim petitioner against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.46 of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the order and decree in E.A.No.44 of 2009 in E.P.No.13 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, at Kottavalasa.
3
BSB,J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of2022 '
2.The decree holder has received the decretal amount from judgment debtors in E.P.No.12 of 2008 and the decree holder is ready to furnish full satisfaction memo and he would file the same intheJuniorCivil Judge Court, Kothavalasa as soon as the stay is vacatedbythisCourt.
All the parties to the appeal pray that an award maybepassedas follows:
4
BSB, C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of 202^
On 23.04.2024, the Court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.15of2022 is as follows: “Smt.K.Parvathi, learned counsel representingthelearnedcounselfor the appellant requested time to bring legal representatives of the respondent on record. I.A.No.01 of 2023 is wrongly filed by showing incorrect name of 1®* respondent. Hence a fresh application with correct name of parties duly signed shall be filed. Post on 07.05.2024“.
(ii) On 25.06.2024, the court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.15of2022isas follows: “Mr.S.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representinglearnedcounselfor the respondents is present and requested two weeks time. He represented that a fresh compromise petition had been submitted to the registry, but, the same is incomplete for want of inclusion of one of the parties who, as per the information, passed away. List on 09.07.2024”.
On 25.06.2024, the court proceeding in C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2022 is directed to be listed along with C.M.S.A.No.15 of 2022 on 09.07.2024.
(iii) On 28.08.2024, there is no representation for appellant. Both parties have no representation continuously on 25.09.2024, 23.10.202.4. Even
5
BSB,J C.M.S.A.Nos.15 and 14 of2022 -
on 06.11.2024, there was no representation, though the matters were posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation inspite of posting the matters under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
- As such, the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal Nos.15and14of2022 are dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil
miscellaneous second appeals shall stand closed.
SD/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
OFFICER
To,
- The Civil (Junior Division) Judge, at Kottavalasa (with records)
- One CC to Sri. Kethvathu Parvathi Bai Advocate [OPUC]
PR
TAC
HIGH COURT DATED:13/11/2024
ORDER
CMSA.No.15 of 2022
S’
I 2!M«W75 ^
^ . Current Section *
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil miscellaneous second appeals filed under Section 100 CPC should be dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the appellant on the dismissal date.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirujogi Tata
Boddakayala Trinadha Venakta Satayanarayana
Gedala Rangamma
Gadela Kalavathi
Gedala Swarnalatha
Gedala Padma
B S Bhanumathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
