High Court dismissed second appeals for non-prosecution. One appeal abated due to death of first appellant without legal representatives within limitation; second appeal dismissed due to lack of interest.
Second appeals dismissed; one for abatement, other for non-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.
,N THE H,GH COURT FOR A' iiirHEABrArEoF TELANGANA
FRID,qY.THE S'XTH DAY OF NOVEA/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
SECO ND APPEAL NO:7 34 0F 2004
Appeal Under Section 100 of C.p.C. against the Judgment and decree dated 30-04-2004 in A.S- No' 28 0f 2003 0n the fire of the court of the principar District Judge Medak at Sangareddy preferred against the order dated 5-08_2003 in o'S No' 23g of lggg on the file of the court of the principar Junior civir Judge at Sangareddy
Between:
... Defendants / Respondents/ Appellants
AND
Mahender Agan.ral, S/o. Late Omprakash Agarwal Business R/o, plot No. 104 & 105, Trimurthy Co-operative Society, l\rlahendra Hills, ll Ventures, East lvlarredpally, Secunderabad. .. Plaintiffs i Appellants/ Respondents
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(SAMP. NO: 11645 OF 2004)
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 suspend the operation of the decree in A.S.No. 28 of 2003 dt. 30-4-2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Sangareddy, pending final disposal of the main second appeal
Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K. MAHIPATHI RAO( notpresent )
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ZEESHANADNAN MAHMOOD
The Court delivered the following:Judgment
HON'BLEJUSTICEG. SRI DEVI
o o 0
JUDGMENT:
Learnedcouuselfor respondentis present'however'Ieamed counsel for appellantsis not present.
This is the appealof the year 2004. When this appeai was lisred on o4.tl.2)2},it has been submittedby the learned counselfor appellants that the 1"appellant had died long back,but no steps whatsoever, have been taken to bring onrecord the legal representatives of l-" appellant within the Statutoryperiodof limitation. Therefore, on 04.11.2020 itself, the appeal was dismissed as abated insofar as 1'' appellant is concerned.
Though sufficier.rt opportunity was given, there is no representation on behalf of even the 2"'r appellant. It seems, the 2,,,r appellant is not inrerested in prosecuting the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution insofar as
the 2"d appellant is concerned. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
{
Sd/.C.V.MALLIKARJ UNA V MA DEPUTY RE TRAR
,TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER
To
l. The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy 3. One CC to SRl. K. l,,1AHlPATHl RAO Advocate [OPUC]
---
HIGHCOURT
GSD J
DATED:0611112020
1
S TA
(
c 22 DtClm
h
* *
JUDGMENT
SA.No.734 of2004
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL
FOR NON PROSECUTION
6 -lj,'"1 )r-u \r'-{,",o
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two second appeals should be allowed to be heard when appellants have failed to prosecute them within the required time.
A. Narsimha Reddy & V.R. Gotlury Reddy
Mahender Agarwal
G. Sri Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
