This court dismissed a City Civil Court Appeal under Section 96 CPC for non-prosecution. The appellant, though listed, failed to appear. The judge held that since the appellant evinced no interest over the years, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without 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.
[32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTY F{RST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
CITY ClvlL COURT APPEAL NO: 446 OF20'18
Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgnrent and Decree Dated 1810612018 made in O.S. No. 145 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
B Janaki Devi, D/o late B.Pravatavadhani, Wio B.Sachindra Ramu, aged58 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 12-2-8231D, l.T. Colony. Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad presently residing in MIG 2/5, HUDA Colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad - 500 028
...APPELLANT/PLAI NTIFF
AND
(Defendant No.5 added as per orders in lA No.3375 of 2006 dated 03-07-2007)
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the respondnets/Defendants from alienating, selling or creating third party interest in any manner of the suit schedule properties of suit OS No. 145 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. B. ANIL KUMAR YADAV (Not present)
Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI S. MALLA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P. RAVI SHANKER
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 4 : None appeared
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
c.c.c.A.No. 446 0F 20la
JUDGMENT:
' None appeared for theappellant,though the matter was listed todayunder the caption 'for dismissal'' On the face of therecord, itdepicts that this appealwas preferred in theyeal. 2018, however, the appellant does not evince any interestto proceedwith the matter and even on the previous datesof hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. Thus,itappears that the appellant is not interested to prosecutethe matter vigitantlyand diligently anymore. Therefore,this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Pending miscellaneousapplications, if any, shall stand
losed. o
SD/. K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To, 1. TheChief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' 2. o"; ccto snis. nr'itl ruvRRvRDAV, Advocate{oPUCl
a. O;"CC to SRI S. MALLA RAO,AdvocatetOPU-C-l .. ;. o;; ccto sRt P. RAVI sHANKER, AdvocatetoPUCl 5. Two CDCoPies
onx(s6'
HIGH COURT
DATED:3110712023
sTAr€
I
v
LCt
I g l[N ?$?<br>3ooq at
l
.c,
t
DESP A1
JUDGMENT
CCCA.No.446 ot 2018
DISMISSING THE CCCA FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS
8Aa. a&t\00 lJ ,At"'* Gd-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal preferred under Section 96 of the CPC should be allowed when the appellant has not shown interest to prosecute.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when no counsel appeared on the list dates despite caption 'for dismissal'.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B Janaki Devi
B Surya Prakash Rao
B.Rama Rao
B.Murali Krishna
B.Srinivasa Rao
E.Krishna Reddy
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
