Dismissed¶57

Pajjuru Anjaneyulu v. Dasari Dhanalaxmi and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2025AS/663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AS.No.663 of 2018 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati | Ravi Nath Tilhari & Maheswara Rao Kuncheam | 12/03/2025 | First appeal u/S 96 CPC against judgment & decree dt. 26.10.2017 in O.S. 61/2014 (XV Addl. District Judge, Nuzvid) | Dismissed for want of prosecution after repeated adjournment requests; appellant's counsel argued he had no instructions | No order as to costs; pending IAs (incl. I.A. 1/2018 u/S 151 CPC stay petition) closed.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed. ¶57

Pajjuru Anjaneyulu Vs Dasari Dhanalaxmi and Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

1
9
iO L

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

APPEAL SUIT NO: 663 OF 2018

¶9

Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.61 of 2014 dated 26.10.2017 on the file of the XV Additional District Judge Court, Nuzvid, Krishna^District.

¶10

Between;

¶11

Pajjuru Anjaneyulu, S/o. Venkateswraao, aged 62 yrs,^{R/o.G.Konduru} village and Mandal.

¶12

...Appellant/Defendant

¶13

AND

¶14

Dasari Dhanalaxmi, W/o Hanumantha Rao, aged 45 yrs. School assistant, G. Konduru Village and Mandal.

¶15

Mallela Nagalaxmi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 32 years. Assistant Manager, Cooperative Bank, G.Konduru, Krishna.

¶16

...Respondent/Plaintiffs

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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

¶19

• 4k

¶20

'/ -*s -Vplea|ed tot( order stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the judgment ^ deV ee i in OS.No.61/2014 dt.26-10-2014 on the file of the XV ■ MU.r ( *•? f District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District. f ■■ J Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. SAI MOHAN RAO

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

APHC010167972018

¶24

sS.J.

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3524]

¶28

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶32

APPEAL SUIT NO: 663/2018

Between:

Pajjuru Anjaneyulu

...APPELLANT

AND

Dasari Dhanalaxmi And Another and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶40

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.KSAI MOHAN RAO

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶46

APPEAL SUIT NO: 663/2018

¶47

JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶48

Request has been made for adjournment by Sri M.Kranthi Gireesh, learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Nagendra Reddy,^{learnedcounselforthe} appellant.

¶49

Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents appearing through virtual mode opposes the adjournment.

¶50

)

¶51

The docket order shows on 23.08.2022, learned counsel for the appellant was not present. On 27.02.2023, there was no representation for the appellant. On 18.04.2023, there was no representation for the appellant. The matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 10.05.2023 at the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was adjourned. On 11.07.2024, there was no representation for the appellant when the matter was taken up for hearing. On that date also, learned counsel for the respondent submitted urgency in the matter. On 02.08.2024 while the respondent was present and reported that he was ready, there was no representation for the appellant. The matter was adjourned for two weeks, finally. On 19.08.2024 at request made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was adjourned, providing that on the next date of listing learned counsel for both parties shall be ready for arguing the appeal. Again on 02.09.2024 at the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the

¶52

¶53

appellant appearing through virtual mode, the matter was adjourned on his request. On 23.09.2024, the request was made for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was adjourned. On 21.10.2024 again it was reported that the paper book was ready and the matter had to be heard finally. The matter was directed to be listed under the caption for hearing.

¶54

Today also the request is made for adjournment.

¶55

We are not inclined to grant adjournment.

¶56

Inspite of granting opportunity to learned counsel appearing for the appellant to argue the matter, he did not advance the arguments saying that he has no instructions.

¶57