Disposed¶29

- v. -

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Dec 2025WP/264/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court batch disposal order dated 30.12.2025 by Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur; erroneous pendency in High Court Live Server Database; Registry note; erstwhile common High Court server; 735 cases verified disposed pre-2019; 595 untraceable cases (142 Division Bench, 453 Single Bench); Annexure-I; Contempt Case No.318 of 2017 disposed 29.03.2018; disposal without prejudice to subsisting rights; liberty to seek revival, reconstruct record or file fresh petitions; miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

All listed matters ordered disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the parties subsisting as on date, with liberty to seek revival, reconstruct the record or file fresh petitions; miscellaneous applications stand closed; no costs. ¶29

- Vs - — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010160201992

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.Nos:AT AMARAVATI 203 to 597, 599 to 655 [3441]

¶3

Appeal Suit No.1558 of 1992

¶4

along with

¶5

Appeal Suit Nos.2300 of 1993; 1596, 1805 of 1995; 107, 874, 1429, 1437 of 1996; 197, 466 of 1997; 210, 1538, 2222 of 1998; 410, 2448 of 1999; 354, 3112, 3678, 53619, 84538, 86113 of 2000; 214, 1184, 1527, 2080, 2275 of 2001; 364, 389, 393, 571, 849, 900, 945, 1276, 1807, 1808, 1817, 2103, 94610 of 2002; 275, 513, 606, 634, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1044, 1624, 90487 of 2003; 88, 2043, 3239 of 2004; 687 of 2005; 209 of 2006; 40, 136 of 2007; 39, 44, 326 of 2008; 189, 190, 687 of 2010; 835 of 2015; Civil Revision Petition Nos.1284 of 2001; 234 of 2004; 252, 253 of 2005; 1711, 3236, 3591, 4342 of 2007; 1857, 2641, 3365, 4038 of 2008; 3894, 3902, 6277 of 2009; 978, 1327, 1328 of 2010; 2267, 3742 of 2011; 1023 of 2013; 1189 of 2015; 270 of 2016; 3770, 4951, 5268, 5277 of 2017; 1167, 1189, 3504 of 2018; Contempt Case Nos.1582 of 2000; 53 of 2001; 167, 324 of 2002; 134 of 2003; 628, 1014, 1023 of 2005; 624, 1226 of 2006; 715 of 2007; 1041 of 2009; 318, 1739 of 2017; City Civil Court Appeal Nos.39, 101 of 2002; Land Acquisition Appeal Suit Nos.2008 of 2005; 7 of 2007; Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal Nos.34 of 2000; 65140 of 2004; 6732 of 2006; Transfer Crl. Petition No.20769 of 2004; Criminal Petition Nos.3962 of 2009; 210, 7602, 11592 of 2010; 1969, 4846, 4903, 7996, 10399 of 2011; 3158 of 2012; 7577, 8571, 15059 of 2014; 8704 of 2015; 1035 of 2016; 9293 of 2017; 3115, 5823, 11426, 12753 of 2018; Second Appeal Nos.1114, 1252 of 2003; 191, 887 of 2005; 1010 of 2006; 313 of 2008; 563 of 2010; Public Interest Litigation Nos.118, 130, 134 of 2012; Tax Revision Case Nos.209 of 2003; 95 of 2004; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.14450 of 1996; 92228 of 1999; 27010 of 2000; 703, 765, 1483, 3011, 4558 of 2004; Transfer Appeal Suit Nos.283, 284, 2260 of 2001; 1061 of 2003; Criminal Revision Case Nos.1045 of 2006; 835 of 2009; 650, 1396, 1937 of 2011; 2303 of 2013; 67 of 2014; 61, 652, 1822, 2015 of 2017; 1947, 3107 of 2018; MACMA: 69409 of 2004; 3604 of 2005; 1828 of 2007; 1938 of 2010; 7, 8 of 2012; Writ Petition Nos.14846 of 1993; 4019, 4213, 4675, 23911, 25470 of 1997; 11662, 12621, 31909 of 1998; 60, 2194, 7492, 16867, 18170, 19281, 19928, 20402, 21320, 27134, 60378, 60403 of 1999; 8256, 24478, 66966 of 2000; 227, 446, 958, 1385,

¶6

¶7

HCJ AS_1558_1992 & batch

¶8

2097, 3174, 4714, 4798, 4943, 5162, 5737, 7555, 7652, 9184, 13065, 13142, 15557, 15993, 16053, 16980, 17327, 19576, 20229, 20282, 23700, 26119, 26208, 26486 of 2001; 3065, 4081, 9150, 13115, 14660, 18691, 18777, 19474, 21328, 21332, 21340 of 2002; 34, 462, 865, 940, 1023, 1184, 1654, 2059, 2062, 2625, 2710, 3005, 3672, 4352, 6534, 11362, 12067, 12140, 12472, 21559, 23078, 25788 of 2003; 329, 416, 490, 491, 512, 685, 923, 1011, 1287, 1470, 1520, 1538, 1668, 1678, 1681, 1718, 1747, 1767, 1779, 1876, 1956, 1960, 1975, 1998, 2183, 2433, 2480, 2742, 2797, 2799, 3036, 3145, 3174, 3218, 3222, 3273, 3282, 3359, 3382, 3438, 3601, 3609, 3619, 3621, 3629, 3878, 3882, 3883, 3890, 3892, 3894, 4479, 4581, 6563, 9209, 10459, 14470, 23808 of 2004; 13675, 16211, 22476 of 2005; 27, 25031, 26005, 26673 of 2006; 4003, 18795, 26679, 27813 of 2008; 264, 267, 6198, 28963 of 2009; 16925, 28476 of 2010; 3427, 6162, 26793, 30295 of 2011; 29830, 34611 of 2012; 10243, 21160, 30606 of 2013; 3959, 5769, 6899, 8170, 11245, 11988, 12538, 13536, 13757, 14409, 19041, 22115, 25838, 26388, 26424, 29134, 29610, 30081, 30607, 32012, 33913, 36108, 37155, 37732, 41133, 42872, 43134 of 2015; 28, 151, 2980, 5235, 5255, 5262, 10771, 11813, 12045, 18112, 18710, 18714, 21252, 25065, 26852, 27909, 33860, 39779, 40516, 40547, 40929, 42812, 45256 of 2016; 2543, 4531, 5158, 6512, 9405, 10790, 11214, 14665, 15125, 15216, 16536, 20620, 20981, 21030, 26067, 31367, 33116, 34064, 37051, 37229, 38839, 44364, 44655, 44849, 44963, 45062, 45083, 45095, 45162, 45178, 45255, 45315 of 2017; 112, 752, 1235, 9495, 9510, 11615, 17335, 21575, 32380, 36830, 44329 of 2018;ITTA: 3, 5 of 2006; 7, 11 of 2007; 6 of 2011; Criminal Appeal Nos.303, 1398, 1432 of 2008; 880 of 2010; 282 of 2011; 129 of 2012; Arbitration Application No.107 of 2018;

¶9

Appeal Suit No.1558 of 1992 Spl.Dy.Collector(L.A), SSP, Kurnool Vs. Kurva Chenchaiah

...Appellant

...Respondent

Advocate for Appellant:

¶14

Mrs. S. Pranathi, Ld. Special Government Pleader appearing vice GP for Civil Services

¶15

Advocate for Respondent:

¶16

¶17

HCJ AS_1558_1992 & batch

¶18

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR DATE : 30^th December, 2025.

¶19

P C :

¶20

The Registry has placed a note before us wherein it is stated that after completion of the affixture of QR codes to all available cases in the Posting, Filing, and English Records Sections, it was found that approximately 1330 cases are still reflected as pending in the High Court Live Server Database.

¶21

A list of such cases has been prepared, which is now listed before us.

¶22

From a reading of the note, it can be seen that the Registry conducted a comprehensive verification exercise by cross-checking the relevant data with records available on the erstwhile common High Court server and upon verification, it is stated, it was found that 735 cases had since been disposed of prior to the year 2019, while the details of the remaining 595 cases are not available on the said server, and that these cases continue to be erroneously reflected as pending in the present High Court database, although they may have been disposed of by the erstwhile common High Court prior to 2019.

¶23

It is in those circumstances that the Registry in the note sought appropriate directions to take steps to mark the cases of all categories, listed in Annexure-I to the note, as disposed of in the Live Server Database and further that the Registrar (Judicial) be permitted to list the remaining 595 cases before the Court for purpose of passing necessary orders.

¶24

¶25

HCJ AS_1558_1992 & batch

¶26

It can be seen that out of the 595 cases, 142 cases are Division Bench matters, whereas the remaining 453 are pertaining to the Single Bench.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner in Contempt Case No.318 of 2017 (listed at Sl.No.592) makes a statement that the matter had since been disposed of by the common High Court vide order dated 29.03.2018.

¶28

The statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Contempt Case No.318 of 2017, therefore, supports the note of the Registry.

¶29

Be that as it may, considering the peculiar circumstances of these cases, and considering the fact that there has been no effort made by any of the counsel to have these matters listed, there would be no useful purpose served by keeping these matters in a state of pendency. We, accordingly, order the disposal of all these matters, without prejudice to the rights of the parties subsisting as on date, by granting liberty to them to seek revival of these cases. In case any cause still survives, it would be open to the parties to either reconstruct the record or file fresh petitions, with a view to protecting any interest that may still survive in that regard.

¶30

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No

¶31

costs.

¶32

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ.

¶33

SSN

- v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

- v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Botta Naga Chiranjeevi Reddy, Vijayawada Vs Mohammad Jamsheed, Vijayawada & 6 Others

Rkec Projects Pvt.Ltd Vs the Chief Engineer

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited Vs Medikonda Constrcutions Private Limited

Y S Nirmala Reddy Vs State of Telangana

- Vs -

K. Surya Prakasa Rao Vsp Vs K. Kameswara Rao & 5 Others