Dismissed¶46

m rajaya lakshmi (died) v. dr. palla bhaskar

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2025AS/196/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Appeal Suit No. 196 of 2018; dismissal for default (no representation for appellants at call/revised call); appeal under S. 96 CPC against decree/judgment dated 04.12.2017 in O.S. No. 69 of 2010 (VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa) decreeing specific performance of agreement of sale dated 26.4.2010 with consequential injunction; interim stay I.A. No. 1 of 2018 (12.02.2018) limited to clause (2) of decree, made absolute 26.07.2018; counsel: G Ramesh Babu (appellants, absent), Smt. M Siva Jyothi (respondents); no merits decided; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit is dismissed for default, with no order as to costs. ¶46

m rajaya lakshmi (died) Vs dr. palla bhaskar — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

APPEAL SUIT No.196 of 2018

¶9

Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the Decree and Judgment dated 04.12.2017 in O.S No.69 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mungara Rajya Lakshmi (died). Ret. By L.Rs/ Appellant^Nos.2 to 6 herein

¶12

Mungara Rama Mohan Raju, S/o.Narayana Raju, Aged about 61 years

¶13

Harsha Vardani, D/o.Rama Mohan Raju, Aged about 38 years.

¶14

Ashoka Vardani, D/o.Rama Mohan Raju, Aged about 37 years,

¶15

Satya Vardani, D/o.Rama Mohan Raju, Aged about 35 years

¶16

Vishnu Vardani, D/o.Rama Mohan Raju, Aged about 33 years

¶17

...Appellants herein/Defendants in O.S

¶18

Appellants are R/o. Door No. 3/1205, Police Quarters, Sionpuram, 3 rd Ward, Co-Operative Colony, Kadapa City.

¶19

AND

¶20

Dr. Palla Bhaskar, S/o.late Palla Krishnaiah, Aged about 56 years.

¶21

¶22

Palla Vijaya Prasanna, W/o.Dr.Palla Bhaskar, Aged about 53 years,

¶23

Respondents are Door No.21/188, Christian Lane, Kadapa City

¶24

-v l-- /T
i - '■ . ,'
i 7<
5‘

¶25

OF 2018

¶26

...Respondents hereln/Plaintiffs in O.S

¶27

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 all further proceedings in pursuance of the Decree and the Judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.69 of 2010, on the^file of the e**" Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI G RAMESH BABU - none appeared

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. M SIVA JYOTHI

¶30

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶31

(RNT,J & MRK,J A.S. NO.196 OF 2018)

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶34

¶35

APPEAL SUIT No: 196 OF 2018

¶36

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam)

¶37

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017^passed in O.S.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the^{specificperformance} of the agreement of sale dated 26.4.2010, directing^{thedefendantsto} execute the registered sale deed, which was decreed^{intheirfavour.}

¶38

This Court on 12.02.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018, passed^the following order:

¶39

“Mrs. M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel appearing for the caveators seeks time to file counter. The decree is one for specific performance of an agreement^of sale and also for consequential injunction. In vie\A/ of the above, there will be an interim stay^onlyin respect of clause (2) of the decree, namely, the decree^forspecific performadpe. ”

¶40