Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

K.Y. Dorathy Vs Y. Grace @ Pari Grace — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
K.Y. Dorathy Vs Y. Grace @ Pari GraceK.Y. Dorathy v. Y. Grace @ Pari Grace

Dismissed¶43

K.Y. Dorathy v. Y. Grace @ Pari Grace

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026AS/3784/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution; no representation for appellant. Appeal Suit No. 3784/2003 (document ID APHC010519872003), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 07.01.2026 by Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ. (judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.). Appeal against Family Court, Vijayawada judgment and decree dated 11-12-1998 in OS No.32/1996 (suit by respondents 1 to 3 - Y Grace Pari Grace, Y W Saranson, Y Gold Wilson Share Wilson - for declaration; appellant K.Y. Dorathy was the 1st defendant; respondent 4 South Central Railway; respondent 5 Family Court, Vijayawada). Interim order of 11.12.2025 listing matter for 26.12.2025 at request of Sri G.R.Sudhakar with no further adjournments. Section 151 CPC petitions including IA No.1 of 2003 (CMP 10059 of 2003) to convert CMA 157 of 1999 into a regular appeal; also IA No.1 of 1999 (CMP 1601 of 1999), IA No.1 of 2002 (CMP 16674 of 2002), IA No.1 of 2008 (ASMP 1430 of 2008). No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stand closed; no monetary quantum; no precedent engaged.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the Appeal Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs; as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶43

Why is it important?

The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution; there shall be no order as to costs. ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; the Appeal Suit was dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs; as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appeal Suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution, there being no representation for the appellant when the matter was taken up on 07.01.2026.

Court's answer

The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution; there shall be no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal Suit No. 3784 of 2003 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati) by K.Y. Dorathy, the 1st defendant below, against the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1998 of the Family Court, Vijayawada in OS No.32/1996, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration was decreed. When the matter was taken up on 07.01.2026 there was no representation for the appellant; the bench of Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ. (judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) dismissed the Appeal Suit for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs, and directed that interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand closed. The merits of the decree were not adjudicated; no precedent was cited or discussed.

A

APHC010519872003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3524]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

APPEAL SUIT NO: 3784/2003

Between:

K.Y. DORATHY, S/O. LATE DAS WILSON EMPLOYEE R/O. 9-3-519, REGIMENTAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD

...APPELLANT

AND

Y GRACE PARI GRACE, W/O. LATE DAS WILSON EMPLOYEE R/O. CHURCH STREET, BAPATISHNAGAR. VIJAYAWADA

Y W SARANSON, S/O. LATE DAS WILSON STUDENT R/O. CHURCH STREET, BAPATISHNAGAR, VIJAYAWADA

Y GOLD WILSON SHARE WILSON, D/O. LATE DAS WILSON STUDENT R/O. CHURCH STREET, BAPATISHNAGAR, VIJAYAWADA

SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SECUNDERABAD

FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal against the Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Vijayawada, dated 11-12-1998, made in OS No.32/1996.

IA NO: 1 OF 1999(CMP 1601 OF 1999

2

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2002(CMP 16674 OF 2002

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP 10059 OF 2003

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to conver the CMA 157 OF 1999 into a regular appeal and to pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(ASMP 1430 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.P VENUGOPAL

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.G V L MURHTY

2.G V L MURTHY

The Court made the following:

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

The suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration, was decreed. Challenging the same, the 1^st defendant filed this appeal.

On 11.12.2025, the following order was passed:

3

< At request of Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant, to obtain latest instructions in the matter and also to prepare his paper book, list under the same caption on 26.12.2025.

No further adjournments will be granted.=

3. No representation for the appellant.

Learned counsel representing Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 is present.

The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

Date: 07.01.2026

Pab

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

APPEAL SUIT NO: 3784/2003

DATE: 07.01.2026

Pab

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Appeal Suit should be dismissed for want of prosecution, there being no representation for the appellant when the matter was taken up on 07.01.2026.medium confidence¶41
The court held
The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶43

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure151¶22

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 11-12-1998 of the Family Court, Vijayawada in OS No.32/1996, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration was decreed; challenged by the 1st defendant via this Appeal Suit.¶19
Family Court, Vijayawada · 11-12-1998
Prior proceeding
OS No.32/1996 (Family Court, Vijayawada): suit by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration was decreed; the 1st defendant filed this Appeal Suit challenging the decree.¶36
Prior proceeding
Interim order dated 11.12.2025 of this Court: at the request of Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant (to obtain latest instructions and prepare the paper book), the matter was listed under the same caption for 26.12.2025, with a direction that no further adjournments would be granted.¶39
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2003 (CMP 10059 of 2003), a petition under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to convert CMA 157 of 1999 into a regular appeal.¶26
Prior proceeding
Interlocutory applications under Section 151 CPC pending in the Appeal Suit, including IA No.1 of 1999 (CMP 1601 of 1999); the cover page also lists IA No.1 of 2002 (CMP 16674 of 2002) and IA No.1 of 2008 (ASMP 1430 of 2008).¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
K.Y. DORATHY¶10
P VENUGOPAL, G.R.Sudhakar
respondent
Y GRACE PARI GRACE¶13
G V L MURHTY, G V L MURTHY
respondent
Y W SARANSON¶14
G V L MURHTY, G V L MURTHY
respondent
Y GOLD WILSON SHARE WILSON¶15
G V L MURHTY, G V L MURTHY
respondent
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY¶16
G V L MURHTY, G V L MURTHY
respondent
FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA¶17

Coram

AI extract

Ravi Nath Tilhariauthor¶35
Maheswara Rao Kuncheammember¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 6 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 11 Dec 2003
Case no.: AS/3784/2003
CNR: APHC010519872003
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Disposal: DISMISSED AS NON PROSECUTION
Case type: Appeal Suit

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravi Nath Tilhari Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

J Veeabhadram, W.G.Dist Vs J.Devi Satyaveni, E.G.Dist
5 Jan 2026
B.Venkata Sailaja, Guntur Dist Vs Ch.Srinivasu, Hyd
5 Jan 2026
Maddimsetty Raman Kumari Vs Maddimsetty Vasudeva Nrusima Satyanarayana
5 Jan 2026
Matam Ashok Kumar Vs State of A.P.
6 Jan 2026
G.Veera Babu Vs G.Krishna Veni
6 Jan 2026
K.Srinivasa Rao Vs a.Ramesh
6 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

K.Y. Dorathy v. Y. Grace @ Pari Grace, AS/3784/2003 (AP), decided on 6 January 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil Procedure151

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Judgment and decree dated 11-12-1998 of the Family Court, Vijayawada in OS No.32/1996, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration was decreed; challenged by the 1st defendant via this Appeal Suit.Family Court, Vijayawada · 11-12-1998
OS No.32/1996 (Family Court, Vijayawada): suit by the plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 for declaration was decreed; the 1st defendant filed this Appeal Suit challenging the decree.
Interim order dated 11.12.2025 of this Court: at the request of Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellant (to obtain latest instructions and prepare the paper book), the matter was listed under the same caption for 26.12.2025, with a direction that no further adjournments would be granted.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Parties & counsel