Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21117 (AP)

CHITTURI PRADEETH SWAMY, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST AND 2 OTHERS v. CHITTURI MANIKYAMBA, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST AND 2 OTHERS

AS/258/2010 · 2025-03-19

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010297882010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI APPEAL SUIT Between: Chitturi Pradeeth Swamy, Kakinada, E.g.dist And 2 Others and Others Chitturi Manikyamba Kakinada E G Dist And 2 Others and Others Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. NUKAPEYI VENKATA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S SUBBA REDDY 2. CH SAMSON BABU 3. GANGA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTULA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 258/2010 Chitturi Pradeeth Swamy, Kakinada, E.g.dist And 2 Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND Chitturi Manikyamba Kakinada E G Dist And 2 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Appellant(S): NUKAPEYI VENKATA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): CH SAMSON BABU GANGA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTULA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3524] NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 258/2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.37 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, in dismissing their suit for partition. 2. Today, when the case is called, there is no representation. Even, at the revised call also, none appeared on either side. 3. As the matter pertains to the year 2010, it is listed in the “Weekly Cause-list” 4. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default. 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 Dated: 19.03.2025 MDP