This judgment dismisses the Civil Court Appeal No. 173 of 2004 for non-prosecution. The appellants failed to appear or represent themselves despite listing for dismissal, despite prior memos by the respondent claiming death of appellants.
Impugned judgment is confirmed and Civil Court Appeal No. 173 of 2004 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
oF TELANGANA
rN rHEHrGH "."-l{i$"tJ[1TsE
MONDAY, .''".'-T',./OTHE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF_OCTOBER iTTOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICE M.LAXMAN
crfi clvl LCOURTAPPEAL NO:'173 oF 2004
Appeal underSection96 of CPC against .the- JudgmentandDecree in O.SNO.139/1998dated08.03'-2OOa on tfre fie of the Court of the 3rd SeniorCivil Judge, City CivilCourt, Secunderabad'
Between:
Both Residing alNo 4-5'231t2,First Floor Pan Bazaar, Secunderabad'
...DefendanUAppellant
AND
...DefendanURespondent
CCCAMP. NO:'11546 OF 2004:
Petition under Section't51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.NO.139/1998 on the file of the Court of the lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A SURYANARAYANA (not Appeared)
Counsel forthe Respondents: P RAM CHANDER
Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HO IOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXIVI-A.N
CITY CNlL COURT APPEAL No.173 OF 2(),C14
JUDGMENT:
In spite r f listing the matter under the ca:tion ,for dismissal', ther: is no representation for the appell:rnts
As per tlre docket proceedings, on 2Z.l22OlB, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 informing the Court that appellant No.l rlied on 17 .ll.2Ol8, a-l tng with the details of legal heirs of appellant No.1. On 13.06.2022, he has also filed ernor-her memo stating tl.at appellant No.2 also died on 16. lCt.2O2l, along with the details of legal heirs of appellant No.2. However, no stef,s have been taken so far.
\
In the cirr:umstances, the City Civil CourtI'opetr.lis dismissed for ron-prosecution. No order as locc,sts Miscellaneous etitions, if any, pending,shall stanlclosed sd/- K SRINIVASA BAO J')lNT REGIStrRAR //TRUE COPY// g/ SECTIONOFFICER
l
To,
1 . The lll SeniorCivil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad( rilh Record) 2. One CC to Sltl.A SURYANARAYANA,Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC toSF l. P RAM CHANDER,Advocate [OPUC]
trN..-
HIGH COUIIT
MLJ
DATED:1711012022
JUDGMEN T
CCCA.No.' 73 of 2004
r'i !.[ S 74
I <br>c '.ll
3 i j,lil ztrd
,7
DISMISSING TH ] CCCA FOR NON-PRoSECUTION WI'fHOU'] {.)OS'TS
r\r,5
<br>a+--}-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court Appeal No. 173 of 2004 ought to be allowed or dismissed for non-prosecution due to inactivity of the appellants.
Whether the dismissal is consecutive to the limited authority vested in the court under Section 151 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.L. Rama Rao
P.L. Laxman Rao
P.L. Narsing Rao
P.L. Srinivas Rao
SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
