Dismissed¶27

Mohad Ismail, v. Kandula Vasundhara

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Mar 2025AS/71/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AS 71/2011, APHC (Amaravati), Mohad Ismail (deceased appellant/D1) vs Kandula Vasundhara & Anita Tibrewal; appeal dismissed as abated by operation of law for failure of legal representatives of deceased appellant to come on record within limitation; no costs; decided 13.03.2025 by Justice B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI; no statutes or precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Since the legal representatives of the deceased appellant/D1 did not come on record within the time prescribed by law, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as abated by operation of law. ¶26

Mohad Ismail, Vs Kandula Vasundhara — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010041322011

¶2

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

¶3

[3368]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

APPEAL SUIT NO: 71/2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHAD ISMAIL, S/O. IBRAHIM, R/O. D.NO. 76-2-53, NEAR DARGAH, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 12 KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

KANDULA VASUNDHARA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, PROPERTY, R/O. AT 1-3/328/7/1, YADDANAPUDIVARI STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶13

ANITA TIBREWAL, W/O. ANIL TIBREWAL, HINDU, PROPERTY, R/O. FLAT NO. 247, FOURTH FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS, MOGALRAJAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-10

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶16

NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.ITHAPU SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶21

APPEAL SUIT No.71 OF 2011

¶22

J U D G M E N T:

¶23

None appeared for the appellant/defendant No.1.

¶24

Sri I.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the appellant/D1 died long ago and no steps were being taken by the legal representatives of the deceased within a period of limitation to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the appeal is abated by operation of law.

¶25

Sri Abhay Siddartha Moothy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 is in attendance.

¶26

There is no dispute that the appellant/D1 died long ago and no steps are being taken by legal representatives of the deceased appellant/D1 within the time prosecuted by law to come on record to prosecute the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, as abated by operation of law.

¶27