The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Second Appeal No. 565 of 2003 for default. The Appellants failed to appear in either the morning or afternoon session despite the matter being listed for dismissal and their counsel being present for the Respondents.
The Second 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.
I ^
THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 565 OF 2003
Appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13-08-2001 made in A.S.No.44 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Rajam affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18-10-2000 made in O.S.No.98of1994 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Palakonda.
Between:
AND
%
\ at Kottisa Street, Palakonda Village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District.
(Appeal against R4 is dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 26/6/2014)
...Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. KOKA RAGHAVA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. VSR ANJANEYALU
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010398822003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3369]
MONDAY .THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 565/2003
Between:
A
K.jagga Rao (d) & 4 Ors
...APPELLANT
AND
K Venkata Appa Rao 3 Ors ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.KOKA RAGHAVARAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.VS RANJANEYALU
The Court made the following Judgment:-
- This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Decree and Judgment dated August 13, 2001 in A.S.No.44 of 2000 on the fileofCourtoftheSenior Civil Judge, Rajam, confirming the decree and JudgmentdatedOctober18, 2000, in O.S.No.98 of 1994 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda.
m
\
- Consequently, due to the absence of the Appellantsandtheirfailureto appear, and to take steps to represent the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. However, there shall be no orderastocosts.
- Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal,shallstandclosed.
SD/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
PR
ns
->s»
T
A 1
HIGH COURT
•' ♦
•*
DAtED: 14/10/2024
'• *•
ORDER
SA.No.565 of 2003
O’
!
1
^ 2 'I FEB 2025
^ . Current Section
DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal should be dismissed for default due to the absence of the Appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kottisa Jaggarao & 4 Ors.
Kottisa Venkata Apparao & 3 Ors.
T Mallikarjuna Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
