Parre. Jyothi Vs Parre. Suvarna Raju

PARRE. JYOTHI, W/O PARRE. SUVARNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RELIGION BY CHRISTIAN, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, RIO RAILWAYPETA, 2ND LINE, NEAR VIJETHA HIGH SCHOOL, AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN CODE 523001

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

PARRE SUVARNA RAJU, S/o ( Late ) Parre. Raja Rao, Aged About 45 Years, Religion By Christian, Occupation Government Court Employee, Working as a Process Server, At District Court, At Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. R/o Door.No.51-1-125/b, Near Penthukostu Church, Kabadipalem, At Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, Pin Code 523001

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

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 topleased to take into the consideration of the Petitioner/Petitioner, and may be pleased to consider the inaction as the court below in disposing of the FCOP.NO.195/2025 on the file of Trail Court of Hon'ble Court of VII ITH Additional District and Sessions Judge Court - Cum - Family Court, At Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and pass a direction to the Trail Court of Hon'ble Court of VIIITH Additional District and Sessions Judge Court - Cum - Family Court, At Ongole, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, Pin

¶15

2

¶16

Code 523001 to dispose the FCOP.NO.195/2025 filed by the Petitioner/Petitioner within six months in accordance with law or as per law

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

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 pleased to dispense with filling of the certified Copies Docket Proceedings passed in FCOP.NO.195/2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of VIIITH Additional District and Sessions Judge Court - Cum - Judge Family Court, At Ongole, Prekasam District, Andhra V Pradesh

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.GOURAVARAPU VENKATA LEELA SUNDARAM

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

3

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 598/2026

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the proceeding sheet that there was no representation for the petitioner on 09.03.2026 and the matter was posted to 11.03.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even though the matter was posted on 11.03.2026 under the caption for dismissal, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter is posted to today, finally. Today, also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This indicates that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter.

¶28

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶30

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶31

13.03.2026 TPS

¶32

4

¶33

120