APHC010001202018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM FIRST APPEAL NO: 57 OF against the Judgment and Decree dated on the file of the Court of the II Addl.District (Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. 19-07-2017 in O.S.No. 28 of 2015 Judge, Parvathipuram.) Between: Mr. Bhogi Srinivasarao Gupta, S/o. R/o. Viswabrahmin Street, Bobbin, Vizianagaram District late Sri Ramayya, Aged about 67 years, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. Saroja Jute Mills Private Limited, T Director Mr. Vykunta Venkata Ramanayya, about 60 years, R/o. Viswabrahmin Street, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Mr Bhogi Vykunta Venkata Ramanayya, about 60 years, R/o. Viswabrahmin Street, Andhra Pradesh. Bobbin,represented by its Managing S/o. late Sri Ramanayya, Aged Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, S/o. late Sri Ramanayya, Aged Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L VENKATESHWAR RAO // Counsel for the Respondents: -- Counsel for the Respondents: — The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010001202018 ■y' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0*0 [3524] I"0^^ THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 57/2018 Between: Mr. Bhogi Srinivasarao Gupta ...APPELLANT AND Saroja Jute Mills Private Limited and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. L VEN KATES HWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: / /' / / f THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 57/2018 JUDGMENT: (perRavi Nath Tilhari, J) On 20.02.2025, the following order was passed: “No representation for the appellant. 2. On 09.09.2024, as learned counsel for the appellant was not available, the matter was adjourned. 3. On 30.09.2024 also the matter was adjourned on the request made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant. 4. On 18.03.2025, there was no representation for the appellant. 5. Today also there is no representation for the appellant. 6. Post after Summer Vacation, 2025, finally under the caption 'for dismissal’.” 2. Today also, there is no representation for the appellant. 3. The matter pertains to the year 2018. 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. Sd/-VDIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR\ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District 1. The Second (with records) 2. One CC to SRI. L VENKATESHWAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] O 0/-ir»ioc HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 I ORDER AS NO. 57 OF 2018 /S ov S I S JUf 2n^ mi: Co ! ^ Curreni Jieciion ★ ./ THE AS IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT