Dismissed
Karne Linganna v. G.Ganga Reddy
Telangana HCSA/23/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree…
What the court decided
AI extract
100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree…
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.
IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF I/ARCH TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT.JUSTICE P'SREE SUDHA
SECON DAPPEALNO:23o F 2015
Appeal UnderSection 100 of CPC againstthe Judgmentand Decreedated 19.09.2014 madein A.S.No.2of 2013on the file of the Courtof the Vll Additional District Judge,Bodhan, Preferredagainst the Decree in O'S'No'33 of 2015 dated 2S.o2.2oogonthefileoftheCourtoftheSeniorCivilJudge,Bodhan'
Between:
Karne Linganna,Sio. Karne Nadipi Bhumanna' aged54 years' R/o Rudur Vittige, vainiMandal, NizamabadDistrict'
...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
AND
...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel forthe Appellant:SRI SUNIL GAWASANE
Counsel forthe ResPondents:-'
The Court madethe following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLESMT. JUSTICE P' SREESUDHA
S CONDAP PEALNo.23of 2015
JU DGMENT
When themotteris token up for heoring' there ls no representotionfor the oppellont'
The oppellontfiled the suit seekingrecovery of domogesond olso possession of the lond odmeosuring Ac.l-OO ondit wos decreed by the triol Court' but the oppelloteCourt reversedthe iudgmentof the triol Court.Aggrieved thereby'the oppellont filed the present oPPeol.
On 02.02.2022,oppellont's counsel obsent ond therefore,the motter wos dlrectedto be listed todoy under thecoption 'for dismissol'' Todoy'though the molteris listed under the coption'for dismissol"there is no representoiionfor the oppellont'Therefore' this
I
Court is of ihe considered view ihot the oppellont is not
interested to purse the liligolion.
Hence, the oppeol is dismissed for defoult. No
costs.
Pending miscelloneous opplicotions, if ony, sholl
stond closed.
I
SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// &
SECTION OFFICER
To, '1. The Vll Additional Districj Judge, Bodhan. (with records) 2. The Senior Civil Judqe, Bodhin.'
? 9n"CC to Sri Sunil Gawasane. Advocate topUCl 4. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0910312022
I gLAN
N
L)
tjj-L t
ocv
$2
. ' t ,t,,irt'
'-r)'/
JUDGMENT
SA.No.23 of 2015
DISMISSING THE S.A. FOR DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS
u\2 ,-'^
Karne Linganna
G. Ganoa Reddy
G. Sarada
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court