Dismissed¶46

Vobilisetty Chidambara Rao, v. Vobilisetty Chandramathi

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Apr 2026AS/274/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; A.S.No.274 of 2015; I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024; legal representatives of deceased sole appellant; condonation of delay of 1989 days; setting aside abatement; admission as appellants 2 to 5; withdrawal of applications; appeal dismissed as abated; specific performance of contract decree; Visakhapatnam; no order as to costs; judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari J with Balaji Medamalli J; dated 15.04.2026; APHC010621082015.

What did the court decide?

None; I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 rejected as withdrawn and the Appeal Suit dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶46

Vobilisetty Chidambara Rao, Vs Vobilisetty Chandramathi — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 rejected as withdrawn and the Appeal Suit dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant - for condonation of the delay of 1989 days, setting aside the abatement, and permitting them to come on record as appellants 2 to 5 - should be allowed or rejected. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Permission granted for withdrawal; I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 (condonation of delay of 1989 days, setting aside the abatement, and admission of the legal representatives as appellants 2 to 5) are rejected as withdrawn.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the Appeal Suit is dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs; as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal Suit No. 274 of 2015 (against a decree for specific performance of contract entered against the sole defendant/appellant): the sole appellant died and the appeal stood exposed to abatement. His legal representatives filed I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 seeking condonation of a delay of 1989 days, setting aside of the abatement, and their admission as appellants 2 to 5; the respondent filed objections. After an interim order of 08.09.2025 (adjournment having been sought to place judgments on condonation of the six-year delay) and a communication instructing withdrawal of the appeal (letter dated 17.03.2026 to counsel, annexed to the letter to the Registrar (Judicial)), counsel, under instructions, sought permission to withdraw the three applications. Permission was granted; I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 were rejected as withdrawn; consequently the Appeal Suit was dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed. Judgment per Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari; bench comprised Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli; dated 15.04.2026.

¶1

¶2

APHC010621082015

¶3

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

¶4

[3572]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶9

APPEAL SUIT NO: 274/2015

¶10

Between:

¶11

VOBILISETTY CHIDAMBARA RAO,, S/O. LATE DR. VARAHALA SETTY, AGED 75 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. FLAT NO. 9-29-24/1, 1ST FLOOR, BRUNDAVAN TOWERS, BALAJEE NAGAR, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶12

...APPELLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

VOBILISETTY CHANDRAMATHI, W/o. Late Surya Rao, Aged 66 years, Hindu, R/o. D. No. 22-63-6, Bobbilivari Street, Visakhapatnam-1.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶17

1.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶19

1.P RAJASEKHAR

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶23

I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024

¶24

IN/AND

¶25

A.S.No.274 of 2015

¶26

JUDGMENT: (per Hon?ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶27

On 06.04.2026, the following order was passed:

¶28

<The sole appellant died. The plaintiff/respondent?s suit for specific performance of contract was decreed against the sole defendant/appellant.

¶29

2. I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 are filed by the legal representatives of the appellant. There was delay of 1989 days in filing the applications to bring on record the legal representatives.

¶30

3. On 08.09.2025, the following order was passed:

¶31

“I.A.No.1 to 3 of 2024

¶32

After arguing at some length in I.A.No.1 of 2024, Ms. G.Mounika, learned counsel appearing for Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested for adjournment, to enable him to place certain judgments regarding the condonation of a long delay of six years in filing the substitute petition by the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, against which the respondents have filed their objections.

¶33

2. Post the matter on 22.09.2025.=

¶34

4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives/applicants have addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for withdrawal of the appeal, under the instructions

¶35

¶36

of the legal representatives to the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The letter dated 17.03.2026 by those legal representatives to their counsel is also annexed to the letter to the Registrar >for withdrawal?.

¶37

5. The applications of the legal representatives to bring them on record as appellants in place of the deceased sole appellant as also for condonation of delay, have not been allowed.

¶38

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants, prays for time to obtain instructions with respect to withdrawal of the applications, itself.

¶39

7. List in the next week.=

¶40

Ms.G.Mounika, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

¶41

submits, under instructions, that I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024, filed to condone the delay of 1989 days in filing the application to bring the applicants on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant, to set aside the abatement, and to permit them to come on record as appellants 2 to 5, be rejected as withdrawn.

¶42