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.

Mohan lal Lalwani Vs Dolmal Lalwani — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
Mohan lal Lalwani Vs Dolmal LalwaniMohan lal Lalwani v. Dolmal Lalwani

Dismissed¶43

Mohan lal Lalwani v. Dolmal Lalwani

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026CMA/356/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010539642004; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction); Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 356/2004; appellants Mohan Lal Lalwani and Savitribai Lalwani @ Rukminibai Lalwani (Vizianagaram) v. Dolmal Lalwani and other respondents of the Lalwani family; dismissal for want of prosecution due to unserved notices (postal endorsement 'no such person in this address') and apparent loss of interest by appellants; no order as to costs; pending IAs closed; bench Ravi Nath Tilhari, J (author) and Balaji Medamalli, J; decided 03.03.2026; no statute or precedent cited; no advocate names printed.

What did the court decide?

The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution. ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, given that notices to the appellants were returned unserved and the appellants appeared no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Court's answer

The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 356 of 2004, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction); bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli, JJ., judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 03.02.2026, the office submitted a fresh service report (report dated 02.03.2026): notices addressed to the appellants (Mohan Lal Lalwani and Savitribai Lalwani @ Rukminibai Lalwani) at the address given in the appeal were returned unserved with postal endorsement 'no such person in this address'. Observing that the appellants appeared no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal, the Court dismissed the C.M.A. for want of prosecution with no order as to costs, and directed that pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. Decided 03.03.2026.

A

APHC010539642004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3572]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

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

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 356/2004

Between:

MOHAN LAL LALWANI, S/O LATE SRI TAKATMAL LALWANI BUSINESS R/O LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCTION VIZIANAGARAM.

SAVITRIBAI LALWANI @ RUKMINIBAI LALWANI, W/O SRI MOHANLAL LALWANI HOUSE WIFE R/O AMBATISATRAM JUNCTION VIZIANAGARAM.

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

DOLMAL LALWANI, S/O LATE SRI TAKATMAL LALWANI BUSINESS R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

LAKSHMI BAI LALWANI, W/O SRI DOLMAL LALWANI HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

TAKATMAL SURESH KUMAR LALWANI, S/O SRI DOLMAL LALWANI R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

KANCHAN LALWANI, W/O SRI TAKATMAL SURESH KUMAR LALWANIL HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

2

HARISH KUMAR LALWANI, S/O SRI DOLMAL LALWANI BUSINESS R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

JYOTHI LALWANI, D/O SRI DOLMAL LALWANI R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

MUKESH LALWANI, S/O SRI DOLMAL LALWANI BUSINESS R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

SUNDARDAS, S/O LATE SRI TAKATMAL LALWANI BUSINESS R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

RUPABAI LALWANI DIED, D/O SIMHACHALAM N.M.R.VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA SWAMIVARI DEVASTHANAM, ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

WANDANA LALWANI, D/O SRI SUNDAR DAS LALWANI R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

DINESH LALWANLI, S/O SRI SUNDAR DAS LALWANI R/O D.NO.22-1-22, LALWANI HOUSE AMBATISATRAM JUNCITON

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal Under Section_____against orders

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.-

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

The Court made the following:

3

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

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 356/2004

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

The office has submitted fresh service report pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2026.

The office report dated 02.03.2026 is, as follows:

<Appellant 1 & 2 – unserved, returned.

(As per postal endorsement >no such person in this address=)

The notice was sent to the correct address as mentioned in

the appeal. However, the notice was not served and received back with the postal endorsement 8no such person in this address9.

It appears that the appellants are no more interested in prosecuting the appeal.

5. The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall

be no order as to costs.

4

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

_____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 03.03.2026 Pab

5

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

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2004

DATE: 03.03.2026

Pab

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, given that notices to the appellants were returned unserved and the appellants appeared no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal.medium confidence¶42
The court held
The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution.ratio¶43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Office submitted a fresh service report pursuant to the Court's order dated 03.02.2026.¶36
Prior proceeding
Office report dated 02.03.2026 recorded that notices to appellants 1 and 2 were returned unserved with postal endorsement 'no such person in this address'.¶41
Prior proceeding
The Court observed that the appellants appeared no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal.¶42

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
MOHAN LAL LALWANI¶9
appellant
SAVITRIBAI LALWANI @ RUKMINIBAI LALWANI¶10
respondent
DOLMAL LALWANI¶13
respondent
LAKSHMI BAI LALWANI¶14
respondent
TAKATMAL SURESH KUMAR LALWANI¶15
respondent
KANCHAN LALWANI¶16
respondent
HARISH KUMAR LALWANI¶18
respondent
JYOTHI LALWANI¶19
respondent
MUKESH LALWANI¶20
respondent
SUNDARDAS¶21
respondent
RUPABAI LALWANI (DIED)¶22
respondent
WANDANA LALWANI¶23
respondent
DINESH LALWANLI¶24

Coram

AI extract

RAVI NATH TILHARIauthor¶35
BALAJI MEDAMALLImember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 2 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 5 Feb 2004
Case no.: CMA/356/2004
CNR: APHC010539642004
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari Balaji Medamalli
Disposal: DISMISSED AS NON PROSECUTION
Case type: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravi Nath Tilhari Balaji Medamalli

N. Rajamma Vs B. Chandra Mouli
1 Mar 2026
Majeti Balarama Krishna @ Balaram Vs General Manager
1 Mar 2026
Kantana Padma Kumari Vs Sri Kantana Nageswara Rao
1 Mar 2026
Sevasadan Trust Vs Gosula Sudha Madhuri & 30 Ors.
2 Mar 2026
Dandamudi Siva Jaganmohini Vs Dandamudi Krishna & 2 Others
2 Mar 2026
K. Babu Vs P.Gomathi @ Ammu
2 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Mohan lal Lalwani v. Dolmal Lalwani, CMA/356/2004 (AP), decided on 2 March 2026.

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

Procedural history3

Office submitted a fresh service report pursuant to the Court's order dated 03.02.2026.
Office report dated 02.03.2026 recorded that notices to appellants 1 and 2 were returned unserved with postal endorsement 'no such person in this address'.

View full history

Bench / Coram

RAVI NATH TILHARI and BALAJI MEDAMALLI

Parties & counsel