Sripada Satyanarayana Vs Sripada Venkata Subramanya Rajagopala Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sripada Satyanarayana Vs Sripada Venkata Subramanya Rajagopala Rao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

.SH ♦ '
•<br>// o
m

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO: 364 OF 201.?

Appeal filed under section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by^theCommon Judgment and decree dated 20.02.2003 passed by the court of IX Additional District Judge ( FTC), Visakhapatnam in O.S No. 176 of 2008 (Originally O.S.No. 249 of 2003 of Princial Civil Judge Visakhapatnam) this appeal is filed against the adverse so far as they are concerned relating to items 6 and 7 of the plaint schedule of O.S.No. 176 of 2008.

Between;

Sripada Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Bhairava Murthy, aged 89 years Retired Employee, R/o. D.No. 4-44-7 Vijayanagar Colony Peda^Waltair Visakhapatnam -17

Sripada Prakash, S/o. Sripada Satyanarayana aged⁴⁵ years Retired Employee R/o. D.No. 4-44-7 Vijayanagar Colony Peda Waltair Visakhapatnam -17

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS 1& 3

AND

Sripada Venkata Subramanya Rajagopala Rao, S/o. Sri Satyanarayana aged about 64 years, C/o. Mrs. Y. Sujatha Advocate R/o. S.F.C.I. Goutham Residency Akkayapalem Visakhapatnam Pin : 530 016

...RESPONDENT/2"'* DEFENDANT

Sripada Krishna Mohan, S/o. Satyanarayana aged about 42 years, R/o. ^ GF No.2 Lotus Krishna Apartments Plot No. 662 C-Block 1st Main Road . ^A.E.C.S. Layout Kundanahalli Gate Marata Halli Bangalore^Pin ; 560

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013tASMP. NO: 1169 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 suspend the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 176 of 2008 of the Court of IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam so far as it reiate to items 6 and 7 of the plaint schedule including stay of delivery of item 7, pending this appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : SRI D RAMALINGA SWAMY

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S RAJAN {R-1)

The Court made the following JUDGMENT :

APHC010123182013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3369]

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO: 364/2013

Between:

1.SRIPADA SATYANARAYANA, S/0. LATE BHAIRAVA MURTHY RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/0. D.NO. 4-44-7 VIJAYANAGAR COLONY PEDA WALTAIR VISAKHAPATNAM - 17

2.SRIPADA PRAKASH, S/0. SRIPADA SATYANARAYANA RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/0. D.NO. 4-44-7 VIJAYANAGAR COLONY PEDA WALTAIR VISAKHAPATNAM - 17

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1.SRIPADA VENKATA SUBRAMANYA RAJAGOPALA RAO, S/0. SRI SATYANARAYANA C/0. MRS. Y. SUJATHA ADVOCATE R/0. S.F.C.I. GOUTHAM RESIDENCY AKKAYAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM PIN : 530 016

2.SRIPADA KRISHNA MOHAN, S/0. SATYANARAYANA R/0. GF^N0.2 LOTUS KRISHNA APARTMENTS PLOT NO. 662 C-BLOCK 1ST MAIN ROAD A.E.C.S. LAYOUT KUNDANAHALLI GATE MARATA HALLI BANGALORE PIN: 560 002

...RESPONDENT(S):

/

f

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

The Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.02.2013, passed in O.S.No.01 of 2003, on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam.

None appeared for the appellants. Sri S.Rajan, learned^{counselforthe} respondent is present.

It is brought to the notice of this Court about the passing away of learned counsel for the appellants, this Court ordered notice but the same were returned un-served with an endorsement ‘no such person in the address’ despite sending to the address shown in the appeal.

It seems that the appellants are not interest to prosecute appeal and without proper representation from both sides, this Court could not proceed further. Hence, this Court has no other alternative except to dismiss the appeal.

In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand^vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand

closed.

SD/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy registrar

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

To,

The IX Additional District Judge ( FTC), Visakhapatnam

--'f

The Princial Civil Judge Visakhapatnam, District.

One CC to SRI. D RAMALINGA SWAMY Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to SRI. S RAJAN Advocate [OPUC]

THREE CD COPIES YM TAC

HIGH COURT

^ DATED:03/01/2025
i * f n
*
«r
•V- .. e-
‘■'.i ■O-

I

ORDER

AS.No.364 of 2013

Of
O',
* ’ 1 JAN 2025
Co
^ . Current Section ^yy

APPEAL SUIT IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT