Mogarala Prasad Vs GerikI Chalapathi

MOGARALA PRASAD, S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O 26-1-1577, RAMANALAYAM STREET. OLD VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE RURAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AP.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

GERIKI CHALAPATHI, . S/O YEDUKONDALU (EXPIRED)

¶13

GERIKI SAI ROHITH, S/O CHALAPATHI (LATE) AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCU- GOVT EMPLOYEE O/O MPDO, KOTA, KOTA (VILLAGE,MANDAL AND POST) GUDURU DIVISION, THIRPUATHI DISTRICT,AP.

¶14

GERIKL SANDHYA, D/O CHALAPATHI (LATE) AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCCUNIL OPPOTTD KALAYANAMANDAPAM THUMMURU VILLAGE AND POST NAIDUPETA MANDAL AND TOWN, SULLURUPETA (DIVISION), THIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP.

¶15

GERIKI DHANALAKSHMI, W/O CHALAPATHI (LATE) OPPO- TTD KALAYANAMANDAPAM THUMMURU VILLAGE AND POST NAIDUPETA MANDAL AND TOWN, SULLURUPETA (DIVISION), THIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of

¶18

2

¶19

Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by order dated 09-12-2024 pssed in IA.No.447 of 2024 in OS.No. 78 of 2014, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge At Guddur.SPSR Nellore District

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased To Stay al, further proceedings in OS.No. 78 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Judge At Guddur,SPSR Nellore District and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.V SUBHRAMANYA PRASAD

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.K PALLAVI

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.447 of 2024 in O.S.No.78 of 2014 by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

¶31

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶32

It is brought to the notice of this Court by Sri B.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel representing Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for respondents, that the e-Courts status shows suit was decreed with costs and hence, nothing remains for adjudication and that the present civil revision petition has become infructuous.

¶33