Dismissed
Vallambhatla Poornachandra Rao v. Smt.Thorpunuri Laxmi Narsamma,Laxmamma
Telangana HCAS/464/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY…
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
rH E Ho No u RAB LE s Rr r r"Si.tSX^ N KArEs HWARA RE D Dy
APPE ALSU IT NO: 464 0 F 2019
Appeal under section 96 cpc R/w. a3 2e) @) of cpc against the Judgment and decree dated 08r1ot2o11 in sR.No.3883 of 2018 on the fire of the court of the principar District Judge at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
Between:
Vallambhatla Poornachander .Rao, s/o. Late Anjayenulu, Aged about 46 years, occAgril, R/ o. H.No. 1-13, Laxmidevi Karwa, Addaguirtir Hranoar,Yioiori tir,onjiioiiirict ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT
AND
lA NO: 3 oF 2019
Petition under Order 39 Rl & 2 andR/w. Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled in supportof the petition,the Highcourt may bepleased togrant Temporary lnjunction restraining the respondentsfrom alienating the suitschedule property,agricultural land in sy. No.340admeasuring AC. 5.00 Gts situatedat choutuppal Villageand Mandal,Yadadri Bhongir District pending disposal of the mainappeal in AS No. 464 of 2019 beforethis Hon'blecourt andpass such otherorderor orders as this Hon'blecourtmay be deem fit and proper in the circumstancesof the case.
For the Appellant: SRI K.MAHIPATHI RAO, Advocate (not present)
For the Respondents: SRI B.A.PRAKASHREDDY, Advocate (not present)
The Court deliveredthe following:JUDGIVENT
HON'BLESRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY AS.No.4640F 2019
ORDER:
Learn:d Counsel forappellantand respondents called abse et.No representation.
On 2, .11.2021 , it is represented that the matteris settled out side the Court, accordingly, for recording the compromi:e, it was adjourned to 30.11.2021. Again from 30.ll.2O2 , it was adjourned to this date.
But, -o-day though the terms of com.promise are filed, ther, r is no representation either on behalf of appellant rr on beha_lf of the respondents, inspite of adjourning the matter at the request of parties.
Hencr , the Appea_l Suit is dismissed for default for non-prosec rtion. No order as to costs.
Pendi rg miscellaneous applications, il' any, shall
stand close 1. No order as to costs.
SdIK.SRINIVASA RAO JCINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// QO SECTION OFFICER
To 1 The Hon'ble Pr rcipal District Judge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Distritt 2 One CC to Sri I ..Mahipathi Rao, Advocate (OPUC) J One CC to Sri l,.A.Prakash Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CD Copier 5 One Spare Col y
j)'
I
HIGHCOURT
DATED:}71't212021
,-4=ffi1
/;
t 1l lAll 2022
ORDER
AS.No.464 of 2019
DISMISSING THE A.S. FOR DEFAULT FOR NON-PROSECUT ON NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.
X ,N \0
Vallambhatla Poornachander Rao
Thorpunuri Laxmi Narsamma
Thorupunuri Ramulu
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court