Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16963 (AP)

Ratnakaram Anantha Krishna Mohan, v. Sugunathavathi Kolisetty,

SA/956/2010 · 2025-02-12

T Mallikarjuna Rao

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010228972010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 956/2010 Between: Ratnakaram Anantha Krishna Mohan, ...APPELLANT AND Sugunathavathi Kolisetty and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y ASHOK RAJ 2. ATCHUTUNI RAMA MOHAN RAO The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal was filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2010 passed in A.S.No.241 of 2009 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.303 of 2004 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Sattenapalli, Guntur District. 2. Notice sent to appellant returned as unserved. It seems that the appellant has not engaged any counsel to represent the case on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant request time again to issue personal notice to the appellant. A perusal of proceeding sheet dated 07.01.2025 indicates that learned counsel for the appellant requested this Court that despite his best efforts, he could not contact with the appellant and requested to order notice to the appellant. In pursuance of his request, this Court ordered notice to the appellant, but it was returned unserved as “addressee left without instructions”. In view of the same, this Court has no reason to again grant time to learned counsel for the appellant to send notice to the appellant. 4. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date:12.02.2025 MS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.956 OF 2010 Date:12.02.2025 MS