1 (RNT,J & MRK,J A.S. NO.2234 OF 2004) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 2234 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff-Society, being aggrieved from the dismissal of his suit filed for fixing the market value of the plaint schedule property, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2003 passed in O.S.No.166 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. On 11.12.2023, the matter was adjourned at the request of appellant’s counsel. On 4.1.2024, none appeared. On 08.01.2024 none appeared. On 25.01.2024, the matter was adjourned at the request of appellant’s counsel. On 7.02.2024 none appeared. On 19.02.2024, 26.02.2024 and on 09.09.2024, the matter was adjourned at the request of appellant’s counsel. On 23.09.2024, the matter was adjourned at the request made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel. On 21.10.2024, at the request of appellant’s counsel, to enable him to file chronology and synopsis of the case as also the paper books, the matter was adjourned. On 4.11.2024, at the request of appellant’s counsel, the matter was adjourned. On 18.11.2024 the matter was adjourned at the request made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel. On 09.12.2024 the matter 2 (RNT,J & MRK,J A.S. NO.2234 OF 2004) was adjourned as it was represented that the appellant’s counsel was not feeling well. Again on 23.12.2024 the matter was adjourned, at the request made on behalf of the appellant’s counsel to file chronological events. On 20.01.2025, the matter was adjourned as the counsel for the appellant was not available. On 03.02.2025, learned counsel for the appellant while making preliminary submissions sought time to examine the legal position, the matter was adjourned. On 17.02.2025, both side counsels were not available. 3. On 03.03.2025, the following order was passed: “At request made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, post on 24.03.2025”. 4. Today, the appellant’s counsel has requested one more adjournment to enable him to prepare and present arguments, as he is not prepared, to argue the matter. 5. Despite several adjournments being granted, the learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared to prosecute the case and is now seeking yet another adjournment to present his arguments. 6. In view of the repeated adjournments, the request for one more adjournment is rejected, as the matter pertains to the year 2004. 3 (RNT,J & MRK,J A.S. NO.2234 OF 2004) 7. The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date : 24.03.2025. RPD. 4 (RNT,J & MRK,J A.S. NO.2234 OF 2004) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION) APPEAL SUIT NO: 2234 OF 2004 Date: 24.03.2025 RPD.