Dismissed¶36

P. Seshi Reddy, Guntur v. N.G. Narayana Swamy & Another

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2026CMA/699/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati, CMA 699/2011 (P. Seshi Reddy v. N G Narayana Swamy and N G Raaja), dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.03.2026 (Tilhari & Medamalli, JJ.). Subject matter: return of plaint by Trial Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction in a money-recovery suit with interest. Counsel for the appellant's counsel on record had no instructions; appellant deemed to have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed. No statutes or precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of the dispute, the afflux of time, and the submission of the counsel for the appellant's counsel on record that she had no instructions, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the appeal. ¶35

P. Seshi Reddy, Guntur Vs N.G. Narayana Swamy & Another — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010131402011

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 699/2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. SESHI REDDY, GUNTUR, S/O VENKATA REDDY R/O D.NO. 3-28-18/85, 7TH LANE , BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

N G NARAYANA SWAMY ANOTHER, S/O LATE GANAPATHI FINANCIER R/O D.NO. X-26, NEW NO. 15, GROUND FLOOR 5TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI40 TAMIL NADU STATE

¶12

N G RAAJA, S/O N.G. NARAYANA SWAMY R/O D.NO. X-26, NEW NO. 15, GROUND FLOOR 5TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40 TAMIL NADU STATE

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶15

1.K G KRISHNA MURTHY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

¶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: 699/2011

¶22

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

¶23

On 17.02.2026, the following order was passed:

¶24

< The appeal is by the plaintiff.

¶25

2. The plaintiff’s plaint in a suit for recovery of the amount with interest was returned by the learned Trial Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and for presentation before the proper Court.

¶26

3. There is no interim order in the appeal.

¶27

4. Consequently, it appears that the plaintiff might have presented the plaint in the proper Court.

¶28

5. However, learned counsel for the appellant appears and prays for some time to obtain latest instructions.

¶29

6. Finally, list after two weeks.=

¶30