Dismissed¶38

Vemireddy Chandrasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist v. Vemireddy Sureka, Nellore Dist

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2026CMA/1003/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1003 of 2016; dismissal for want of prosecution; non-representation of appellant; refusal of further adjournments (order dated 03.02.2026); custody/guardianship backdrop (Guardian O.P. No. 480 of 2014, minor DOB 16.10.2008); no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed; coram Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. and Balaji Medamalli, J.; decided 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Since no further adjournment was to be entertained per the last order dated 03.02.2026 and there was no representation for the appellant (respondent's counsel being present), the C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs. ¶38

Vemireddy Chandrasekhar Reddy, Nellore Dist Vs Vemireddy Sureka, Nellore Dist — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010133682016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3572] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1003/2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

VEMIREDDY CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, NELLORE DIST, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, KASIPURAM, VAKADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

VEMIREDDY SUREKA NELLORE DIST, W/o. V. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Hindu, Kolagatla Village, Sangam Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶15

1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

1.G JAGADEESWAR

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2016

¶22

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

¶23

On 06.01.2026 and 03.02.2026, the following orders were

¶24

passed:

¶25

“06.01.2026:

¶26

The Guardian O.P.No.480 of 2014 filed by the present appellant seeking custody of the minor was dismissed

¶27

2. The date of birth of the minor as mentioned in the order is 16.10.2008.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to obtain latest instructions.

¶29

4. Post after four (04) weeks.

¶30

03.02.2026:

¶31

At the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, post after two weeks.

¶32

2. Learned counsel for the respondent is present.

¶33

3. It is made clear that no further adjournments will be entertained.”

¶34

Today, there is no representation for the appellant.

¶35

Considering the last order dated 03.02.2026 that no further

¶36

adjournment will be entertained and as there is no representation for

¶37

¶38

the appellant, though learned counsel for the respondent, is present, the C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

¶42

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶43

_____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J

¶44

Date: 17.02.2026 Pab

¶45