Dismissed¶¶27

K.Subhashini and Another. v. Manager., Sbh, Warangal

Telangana HC10 Feb 2025AS/3128/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of appeal for default / non-prosecution; Section 96 C.P.C. appeal suit; appellants were Defendants 2 & 4 (Katanguri Subhashini; K. Venkatram Reddy); respondent State Bank of Hyderabad, Chowrasta Branch, Hanumakonda; impugned decree dated 31-07-1999 in O.S.No.445 of 1992, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal; suit for recovery of money; no representation on 04.02.2025-06.02.2025; listed 'For Dismissal' 07.02.2025; appellants lost interest; no costs; CMP No. 27820 of 1999 stay petition under Section 151 CPC; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Despite the matter being listed 'For Dismissal' on 07.02.2025, none represented the appellants, indicating they had lost interest in the Appeal, leaving the Court with no option but to dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution. ¶¶26

K.Subhashini and Another. Vs Manager., Sbh, Warangal — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

43217 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

APPEAL SUIT NO: 3128 OF 1999

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 31-07-1999 passed in O.S.No.445 ot 1992 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Katanguri Subhashini, Wo Sampat Kumar, Household R/o Hyderabad

¶10

K. Venkatram Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, Employee, Aged: 42^./ears, R/o Nayeemnagar, Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist.

¶11

,..DEFENDANTS 2 & 4 APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

State Bank of Hyderabad through its Manager, Chowrasta Branch, Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist. (The Other defendants in the suit are not necessary parties to this appeal)

¶14

...PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

¶15

CMP. NO: 27820 OF 1999

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including passing of final decree in O.S.No.445 of^-1992 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, pending disposal of the above Appeal

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI V. VIJAYA RAMA RAJ (NOT PRESENT)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA

¶19

(NOT PRESENT)

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

TI.IE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶22

APPEAL SUIT No. 3128 OF 1999

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This ap real suit is directed against the decree ancl judgment dated 31 07.11)99 in O.S.No.445 of 1992, on the file of the ll Additional Senior Civil^,Jtdge, Warangal, whereby the suit for recovery of money, has been der;r:ed Challenging the impugned decree and^judgment, the appellants/def(rndant Nos.2 and 4 preferred this appeal

¶25

None apoeared for the appellants or respondent

¶26

As per he Proceeding Sheet, on 0402.2025, 05022025 and 06.02.2025 as then3 was no representation for the appellants, the matter was directecl to be listed on 07.02.2025 under the caption 'For Dismissal'. )esprite listing the matter 'for dismrssal', none has represented the aplrellants. This position is indicating that the appellants had lost interer;t in the Appeal and this Court ieft with no option but to dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution.

¶27

Accordin.lly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for defaull. No costs.

¶28

As a se 1uel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶29

stand closed

¶30

¶31

Sd/. T. SRINIVAS DEPUN/ REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

i'\ \ecloru oFFrcER

To,

The ll Addi'ional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.^(with records if any) 2. One CC to {iri V. Vijaya Rama Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Iiri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies xflPlp/gh

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010212025

JUDGMENI-

AS.No.3128 of 1999

r . l: s _r-n7t.
7o Q,O
cJ)-.,.: c'i ilrs -,!(-i
L