Disposed

Sowbhagya Laxmi v. Nadikunta Isthari

Telangana HC14 Nov 2023SA/1416/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against a decree in a suit for injunction. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the appellant's counsel was absent and failed to appear during the hearing despite intimation of dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Sowbhagya Laxmi Vs Nadikunta Isthari — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,^{THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENW THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEP. SREE SUDHA}

¶5

SECOND^{APPEAL NO:1416 0F 2005}

¶6

Appeal filed^{under Section 100of CPCagainst.the Judgmentand Decree of} the court of^{the ll nooitioJ'oistii"i j'ogu,RO'itaoaoin AS No"14of 1999 dated} 27 .07 .2005^{preferred againJt-tn" l'Ogrn"-ntand} .D^9cpe^{of the Court of the Junior} e;rr l;; Jt nJlruro^{i-n os No.55of1 ee3 dated 01 03 '1e99}

¶7

Behveen:

¶8

Sowbhaqva Laxmi,^{Wo. Arthar(DIED)} 1 ViiavaW/o V. Sunder^Rao, z vih6oa,^{W/o LateM. Prabhakar,} 5 viova Rani,^{Wo C.N. PrasadaRao} (Aoo6lants 1 to 3 are Urorg'hiin'iJ"ord^{as LRs of deceased sole Appellant as per} 5ii''I't"dro".^{a"i"o is.r -2007in ctvtp 3350/06)}

¶9

,,...APPELLANTS/APPELLANT'PLAINTlFF

¶10

AND

¶11

Nadikunta lsthari,^{S/o, Narslrnulu,occ: Sweeper.inPoliceStation,Adilabad'} iit'd;iil6",Ulo=iiriivotnoinr*.LttU#liBEx9,'iEEFo*,TN,DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel^{for the Appellants:SRI' S' P' R' SUKENDERBABU} (NoT PRESENT) b.r,t*iilt^{tf,e Respondent :SRI' SATHVIK MAKUNUR}

¶13

The Court^{madethe following JUDGMENT:}

¶14

¶15

¶16

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA SECOND No.1416 of2005

¶17

JUD G MENT:

¶18

This second appeal is hled against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.20O5 in A.S.No.14 of 1999 passed by the 2"a Additionat District Judge, Adilabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated o 1.03. 1999 in O.S No.55 of 1993 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

¶19

The suit for injunction filed by the appellant_ plaintiff herein urde O.S.No.SS of 1993, was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the present Second Appeal is frled.

¶20

On 01.1L.2O23, there was no representation on behaif of the learned Counsel for the appellant, as such the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal'on 01.1 L.2O23.

¶21

Even today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the leamed counsel for the appellant. Hence, no pulpose would be served in continuing the present appeal.

¶22

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed for non_

¶25

prosecution. No order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if

¶27

any, shall stand closed.

¶28

//TRUE COPY//

¶29

SD/.M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \b,/,.-

¶30

SECTION OFFICER

¶31

¶32

1.The ll Additional^{DistrictJudge, Adilabad (WITH RECORD)} 2.The Junior^{Civil Judgeat Adilabad} 5.o;; CC i; Sni^{s ph sUKENDERBABU Advocatgfo-fucl} ; o;; ca io sni. snrnvlK^{MAKUNURAdvocate [oPUc]} 5.Two CD Copies

0 I /

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14.11.2023

JUDGMENT:

SA.No.1416 of²⁰⁰⁵

:..,
r': .t :': r,': '1 I
( I it-u !i-,
*
t's T cr& 0

¶41

DISMISSED FOR NON+ROSECUTION' @q' €- yP s

Sowbhagya Laxmi v. Nadikunta Isthari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sowbhagya Laxmi v. Nadikunta Isthari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srigadi Shankaraiah Vs a. Ramalinga Swamy and Anr.

Nlarala Venkatanarsu Vs Narala Shankaraih

Cherka Satyanarayana Vs Peddaboina Yadaiah

Ande Narayanna Vs Mekala Lakshmaiah

Smt. S. Gandamma, Vs Smt. K. Laxmamma

Nandala Laxminandam Vs Chettipalli Rama Devi