Dismissed¶18

Majeti Balarama Krishna @ B alaram v. Union ofindia

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026CMA/252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution; CMA Nos. 817 of 2004 & 252 of 2017; appeals by appellant/plaintiff against dismissal of suits O.S.No.307 of 1994 and O.S.No.310 of 1994 by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada (order dated 18.03.2003); instructions awaited despite letter dated 20.12.2025; counsel Sri L. Radha Krishna for Sri Venkat Challa; interim orders dated 16.12.2025 and 23.12.2025; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; judgment dated 02.03.2026; no substantive issue argued or decided.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 817 of 2004 and 252 of 2017 are dismissed for want of prosecution, as counsel could not advance arguments in the absence of instructions from the appellant. ¶18

Majeti Balarama Krishna @ B alaram Vs Union ofindia — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

(RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NOS.817 OF 2004 & 252 OF 2017)

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs: 817 of 2004 & 252 of 2017

¶5

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

¶6

These appeals have been filed by the appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved from the dismissal of his suits by order dated 18.03.2003 passed in O.S.No.307 of 1994 and O.S.No.310 of 1994 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

¶7

2. On 16.12.2025 the following order was passed:

¶8

<A request has been made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel to get the latest instructions. She submits that the matter has been settled.

¶9

2. List next week finally under the same caption.=

¶10

On 23.12.2025 the following order was passed:

¶11

<Sri L.Radha Krishna, learned counsel appears for the appellants’ counsel and seeks for one more opportunity to obtain instructions. He submits that the letter has been sent to the appellants seeking instructions, which are awaited.

¶12

2. Post after Sankranthi Vacation-2026.=

¶13

Sri L. Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that instructions have not been received from the appellant despite the letter dated 20.12.2025, which

¶14

¶15

(RNT,J & BM,J CMA. NOS.817 OF 2004 & 252 OF 2017) was delivered on 23.12.2025, consequently he is not able to advance the

¶16

arguments in appeal.

¶17