1 APHC010621082015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI APPEAL SUIT NO: 274/2015 Between: 1. VOBILISETTY CHIDAMBARA RAO,, S/O. LATE DR. VARAHALA SETTY, AGED 75 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. FLAT NO. 9-29-24/1, 1ST FLOOR, BRUNDAVAN TOWERS, BALAJEE NAGAR, SIRIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. VOBILISETTY CHANDRAMATHI, W/o. Late Surya Rao, Aged 66 years, Hindu, R/o. D. No. 22-63-6, Bobbilivari Street, Visakhapatnam-1. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 IN/AND A.S.No.274 of 2015 JUDGMENT: (per Hon?ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 06.04.2026, the following order was passed: <The sole appellant died. The plaintiff/respondent?s suit for specific performance of contract was decreed against the sole defendant/appellant. 2. I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 are filed by the legal representatives of the appellant. There was delay of 1989 days in filing the applications to bring on record the legal representatives. 3. On 08.09.2025, the following order was passed: “I.A.No.1 to 3 of 2024 After arguing at some length in I.A.No.1 of 2024, Ms. G.Mounika, learned counsel appearing for Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested for adjournment, to enable him to place certain judgments regarding the condonation of a long delay of six years in filing the substitute petition by the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, against which the respondents have filed their objections. 2. Post the matter on 22.09.2025.= 4. Learned counsel for the legal representatives/applicants have addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for withdrawal of the appeal, under the instructions 3 of the legal representatives to the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The letter dated 17.03.2026 by those legal representatives to their counsel is also annexed to the letter to the Registrar >for withdrawal?. 5. The applications of the legal representatives to bring them on record as appellants in place of the deceased sole appellant as also for condonation of delay, have not been allowed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants, prays for time to obtain instructions with respect to withdrawal of the applications, itself. 7. List in the next week.= 8. Ms.G.Mounika, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits, under instructions, that I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024, filed to condone the delay of 1989 days in filing the application to bring the applicants on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant, to set aside the abatement, and to permit them to come on record as appellants 2 to 5, be rejected as withdrawn. 9. Sri K.S.S.Sanjay, learned counsel appears for the respondent. 10. Permission is granted. 11. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2024 are rejected as withdrawn. 12. Consequently, the Appeal Suit is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 15.04.2026. Pab