Dismissed¶¶28

Gundepalli Anjaneyulu v. Calindi Varalakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2025SA/125/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Second Appeal No. 125/2004, decided 06.01.2025 by T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. Gundepalli Anjaneyulu v. Calindi Varalakshmi and others. Appeal against confirmation of trial decree in O.S.No.710 of 1990 by A.S.No.51 of 1998. Dismissed for default for non-prosecution: notice to appellant returned un-served ('insufficient address'), no representation from either side. No order as to costs; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous petitions closed. No issues decided, no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed for default, as the appellant did not prosecute the matter and there was no proper representation from either side; there shall be no order as to costs. ¶¶28

Gundepalli Anjaneyulu Vs Calindi Varalakshmi — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010062752004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3369]

¶5

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO: 125/2004

¶9

Between:

¶10

GUNDEPALLI ANJANEYULU, S/O SATHEYYA EMPLOYEE R/O KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY E.G.DIST.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

CALINDI VARALAKSHMI, W/O KRISHNA BABJI R/O CHANDRASATRAM STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY E.G.DIST.

¶14

YELUBANTI VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO EMPLOYEE, A.P.MILLS KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶15

RAJA TAYARAMMA, W/O NAGESWARA RAO BUSINESS KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶16

KATTUNGA GAVARAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶17

ATTILI VENKANNA, S/O NOT KNOWN KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶18

DUVAKA KUMAR, S/O NOT KNOWN KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶19

P VENKAYAMMA, W/O PADDAIAH KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶20

POLAVARAPU KOTESWARA RAO, S/O PADDAIAH

¶21

KOTILINGALAPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY RDMC.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

¶24

The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2003, passed in A.S.No.51 of 1998, on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.01.1998, passed in O.S.No.710 of 1990 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

¶25

On 16.12.2024, learned counsel for the appellant represented that despite their best efforts, they could not be able to contact the parties and requested this Court to issue notice to the appellant. Hence, this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant.

¶26

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the notice sent to the appellant was returned un-served with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’, though notice was sent to the address shown in the appeal.

¶27

It seems that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the matter and without proper representation from both sides, this Court could not proceed further.

¶28