The High Court dismissed an appeal suit for want of prosecution after the appellant failed to appear, provide representation, or engage new counsel despite the death of the previous counsel.
Notice issued to engage counsel; appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.704 OF 2008)
APHC010351362008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3572]
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI APPEAL SUIT NO: 704/2008
Between:
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENT(S):
IA NO: 1 OF 2008(ASMP 1833 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 to stay all further proceedings in E.P. No. 49 of 2006 in O.S. No. 70 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, pending disposal of the above appeal, in the interest of justice and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.S D GOWD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
2
(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.704 OF 2008)
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claim-petitioner, being aggrieved from the order and decree dated 17.06.2008 passed in E.A.No.77 of 2008 in E.P.No.49 of 2006 in O.S.No.70 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur.
“The appellant is the applicant in E.A.No.77 of 2008 in E.P.No.49 of 2006 in O.S.No.70 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The claim petition was dismissed.
2. As per the docket order, notice was issued to the respondents on 02.09.2008 and, as per the service report, the same was served on 13.10.2010. By order dated 20.10.2010, as none appeared, the matter was directed to be posted to the next week. On 27.10.2010 also, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and, consequently, the interim application filed in the appeal was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the matter has not been listed.
3. Today also, there is no representation on either side.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the learned counsel for the appellant passed away during the COVID period. Though sufficient time was available for the appellant to make alternate arrangements by engaging another counsel, no steps have been taken so far. However, in the interest of justice, a last opportunity is granted to the appellant to engage another counsel.
5. Let the notice be issued to the appellant to engage another counsel.
6. Post after two (02) weeks along with service report."
3
(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.704 OF 2008)
returned with an endorsement “Addressee left without instructions”.
appeal.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI,J
Date : 02.03.2026. RPD.
4
(RNT,J & BM,J A.S.NO.704 OF 2008)
210
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
(DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION)
APPEAL SUIT NO: 704 OF 2008
Date: 02.03.2026
RPD.
N. Rajamma
B Chandra Moulai
Y P Rama Raju
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Balaji Medimali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
