Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16168 (AP)

SANAPALA LATCHANNA.(DIED).&5 OTHERS. v. SANAPALA SREEDHARUDU.& 7 OTHRS.

SA/359/2001 · 2025-01-03

T Mallikarjuna Rao

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010212662001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 359/2001 Between: 1. SANAPALA LATCHANNA.(DIED).&5 OTHERS., - ...APPELLANT AND 1. SANAPALA SREEDHARUDU 7 OTHRS, - ...RESPONDENT THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.01.2001, passed in A.S.No.13 of 1994, on the file of the learned District judge, Visakhapatnam, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 31.12.1993, passed in O.S.No.96 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsiff, Bheemunipatnam. 2. On 27.03.2024, on being represented by learned counsel for the appellants reported that he has given up vakalat, this Court ordered the Registry to issue notices to the appellants. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that notice sent to appellant No.1 returned as addressee died, notices sent to appellant Nos.2 and 5 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘deceased’, notice sent to appellant No.3 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’ and notices sent to appellant Nos.4 and 6 returned un-served with an endorsement ‘addressee left’. 4. Though the notices were sent to the addresses shown in the appeal, they were returned un-served. Despite the best efforts, the notices could not be served to the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not showing interest to prosecute the matter and this court has no other alternative except to dismiss the appeal. 5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 03.01.2025 M K K HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Second Appeal No.359 of 2001 Dated: 03.01.2025 M K K 40