Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13994 (AP)

B.PULLAMMA v. B.PICHAIAH & ANOTHER

SA/914/2002 · 2025-07-09

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010171012002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI IS THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI SECOND APPEAL NO: 914 OF 2002 Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree made in AS No.62/1995 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaropet dated 25-04-2001 reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S No. 3/1991 on the file of the Principal Munsif Magistrate Court, Narasaraopet dated 13-03-1995. Between: Bodapati Pullamma, w/o Late Subba Rao, aged about 66 years. Agriculturist, Resident of Paragaticherla Village, Rompicherla Mandal, Narsaraopet DMC, Guntur District ...APPELLANT/APPELLANT AND 1. Mulupuri Pitchaiah, S/o Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, cultivation, R/o Paragaticherla, Rompicherla Mandal, Narasaraopet DMC, Guntur District 2. Kandula Kotesudu, S/o Appaiah, Hindu, Aged about 81 cultivation, R/o Paragaticherla, Rompicherla Mandal, Narasaraopet DMC, Guntur District years. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -e / >>. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOWA CHANDRASHEKAR RAO - NO REPRESENTATION Counsel for the Respondent: NO REPRESENTATION The Court made the following JUDGMENT : # APHC010171012002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI SECOND APPEAL NO: 914/2002 Between; B.PULLAMMA, - 1. ...APPELLANT AND 1. B PICHAIAH ANOTHER,- ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.MOWA CHANDRASHEKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: f r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI SECOND APPEAL No.914 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: No representation on either side, though the matter is posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Earlier also, there was no representation on either side. In that view of the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed 2. for non-prosecution. There shall be no Order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall SOI- M.RAMESH BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narasaropet, Guntur District (with records if any) 2. The Principal Munsif Magistrate Court, Narasaraopet, Guntur District 3. One CC to Sri. Movva Chandrashekar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies Stu TAC V HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 JUDGMENT SA NO. 914 OF 2002 3 2 5 SEP 2025 jv^nrent Sectigj^ \ase4iss^ 09 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION