IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE o i I o \ % -I Hill. PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 1059 OF 2003 Appeal under Section 100 OF CPC against the Decree and Judgement in AS No.202/1996 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Guntur dt. 19/2/2003. Between; Mettu Kolanda Reddy, S/o.Seetharami Reddy, Age; 67 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Stambala Garuvu, Guntur (City & District.) ...APPELLANT (1®^ DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT) AND 1. Mettu Jagannadha Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Stambala Garuvu Guntur (City & District.) 2. Mettu Khasim Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy Age; 57 years, Occ; Agriculture R/o. Stambala Garuvu Guntur (City & District.) 3. Mettu Yella Reddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Employee R/o. Stambala Garuvu Guntur (City & District.) ...RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS) i w (The 2"*^ defendant/respondent in A.S. No.202 of 1996 is not a necessary party to the Second Appeal. Hence the 2"'* defendant/respondent is omitted in this Second Appeal) Counsel for the Appellant : SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM Counsel for the Respondents : SRI D V SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010266382003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 1059/2003 Between: ...APPELLANT Mettu Kolanda Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Mettu Jagannadha Reddy and Others Counsel for the Appellant: 1.MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D V SITARAMAMURTHY The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal was filed by the appellant/1®* defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 19.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.202 of 1996 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.1996 passed in O.S.No.1076 of 1995 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing in the morning session, no representation on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. The matter was subsequently passed over at 2.15 P.M. 1. .2. 3. In the post lunch session also, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’. It seems that the appellant is not evincing any interest to prosecute with the appeal. 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. SD/- K.TATARAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The First Additional District Judge, Guntur, (with records) 2. The II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 3. One CC to SRI. MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. D V SITARAMAMURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 5. The section officer VR Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. THREE CD COPIES Chp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.1059 of 2003 0" X 2 >l MAK 20’*^ I ^ . Current oeciion ^y DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL FOR DEFAULT