Dismissed¶5

Majeti Balarama Krishna @ Balaram v. General Manager

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026CMA/817/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMA 817 of 2004 & 252 of 2017 dismissed for want of prosecution (decision dated 02.03.2026): counsel unable to obtain appellant’s instructions despite letter dated 20.12.2025; appeals challenged dismissal dated 18.03.2003 of suits O.S.Nos.307 and 310 of 1994 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada); no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; judges Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; appeals dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions (if any) standing closed. ¶5

Majeti Balarama Krishna @ Balaram Vs General Manager — 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