IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 28 OF 2015 Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC against the order dated against the decree and Judgment dated 13-8-2014 passed in AS No. 19 of 2012 on the file court of the I Additional District Judge, Kadpa, YSR Kadapa District, to set aside the Decree and Judgment, dated 31-10-2011 passed in OS No. 20 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District Between: 1. Putta Sreenivasulu, S/o. Late Venkataramanaiah Occ: Business R/o. D.No. 10/660, Bellam Mundi Street, Kadapa City and District. 2. Putta Vasudeva Rao, S/o. Venkatramanaiah Occ; Senior Manager, Hyderabad Insustries Ltd., R/o. AG-4, Hill Quarters, CZECH Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS / APPELLANTS 2 & 3 /PLAINTIFFS 2 & 3 AND 1. Dasari Nagarani, W/o. Dasari Venkatramaiah R/o. Molavanka Village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. S.Taharunnisa Begum, W/o. Mahaboob Basha, R/o. C.K. Dinne Village & Mandal, Kadapa District. 3. S.Hussainbee,, W/o. Mahaboob Basha R/o. C.K. Dinne Village and j^andal, Kadapa District. j: ! j 4 Putta Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Late Putta Venkataramanaiah Occ: Business R/o. 21/294, SFS Street, Murugesan Compund, Kadapa City and District. (4*^^ Respondent Not necessary Party) ...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 / DEFENDANTS & 1®* PLAINTIFF I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(SAMP. NO: 90 OF 20151 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of STATUS QUO obtaining as on the date to be maintained during the pendency of the Second Appeal Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT :SRI. G RAMA SARMA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.28 of 2015 JUDGMENT: Today whejn the matter is taken is taken up for hearing, 1. learned counsel representing on behalf of the respondent is alone present. 2. Though the matter is listed under the caption For Dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not inclined to prosecute the appeal. 3. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.(with records) 2. The Senior civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.(with records) 3. One CC to Sri G Rama Sarma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Karri Murali Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies Psr vna A HIG,H COURT y^|kTED:06/02/2025 ,i JUDGMENT SA.No.28 of 2015 and/^ I 2 8 FEI 2i25 . Current Section ^ ^^spatcva^S^^ DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION