One judge dismissed an appeal filed in 1985 for non-prosecution and improper prosecution due to the lapse of twenty-five years and failure to serve respondents Nos. 6 and 7 despite non-cooperation by the appellant.
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution/improper prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.951 of 1986
Dated:29.07.2010
Between:
Nagula China Mutyalu.
….Appellant
And P.Venkata Rao, And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO APPEAL SUIT No.951 of 1986
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.400 of 1981, dated 14.06.1985.
The appeal was filed on 28.09.1985. Even after lapse of twenty five years, as per the Office report, respondent Nos.6 and 7 remained unserved. This only shows that no proper diligence was bestowed by the appellant in prosecuting the appeal. In such circumstances, this Court has no other go than performing the unpleasant task of dismissing the appeal for
non-prosecution/improper prosecution. Counsel submits that General Power of Attorney Holder is representing, but this appears to be not correct.
The Appeal Suit is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution/improper prosecution.
__________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
29.07.2010 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal suffers from non-prosecution due to lack of diligence and improper service of respondents.
Nagula China Mutyalu
P.Venkata Rao
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
