Dismissed¶21

Sanapala LATCHANNA.(DIED).&5 Others. v. Sanapala Sreedharudu.& 7 Othrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2025SA/359/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Second Appeal No. 359/2001; Sanapala Latchanna (died) & 5 others v. Sanapala Sreedharudu & 7 others; decided 03.01.2025 by T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.; appeal dismissed for default (non-prosecution); appellants' counsel gave up vakalat on 27.03.2024; notices returned un-served (deceased, insufficient address, addressee left); no decision on merits of the property dispute arising from O.S.No.96 of 1984 (District Munsiff, Bheemunipatnam) reversed in A.S.No.13 of 1994 (District Judge, Visakhapatnam); interim orders vacated; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed for default, with no order as to costs. ¶21

Sanapala LATCHANNA.(DIED).&5 Others. Vs Sanapala Sreedharudu.& 7 Othrs. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010212662001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3369]

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶8

SECOND APPEAL NO: 359/2001

¶9

Between:

¶10

SANAPALA LATCHANNA.(DIED).&5 OTHERS., -

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

SANAPALA SREEDHARUDU 7 OTHRS, -

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

¶16

The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2001, passed in A.S.No.13 of 1994, on the file of the learned District judge, Visakhapatnam, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 31.12.1993, passed in O.S.No.96 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsiff, Bheemunipatnam.

¶17

On 27.03.2024, on being represented by learned counsel for the appellants reported that he has given up vakalat, this Court ordered the Registry to issue notices to the appellants.

¶18

Today, when the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that notice sent to appellant No.1 returned as addressee died, notices sent to appellant Nos.2 and 5 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘deceased’, notice sent to appellant No.3 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’ and notices sent to appellant Nos.4 and 6 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘addressee left’.

¶19

Though the notices were sent to the addresses shown in the appeal, they were returned un-served. Despite the best efforts, the notices could not

¶20

be served to the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not showing interest to prosecute the matter and this court has no other alternative except to dismiss the appeal.

¶21