Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27051 (AP)

NAKKA KUMAR SAI PRASAD v. PARVATAREDDY MAJULA DEVI

SA/991/2003 · 2025-02-19

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010382942003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: Between: Nakka Kumar Sai Prasad Parvatareddy Majula Devi Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P PHALGUNA RAO The Court made the following The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated A.S.No.16 of 2003, Judge, Kavali, Nellore District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 991 OF 2003 Nakka Kumar Sai Prasad ...APPELLANT AND Parvatareddy Majula Devi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: M VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: P PHALGUNA RAO The Court made the following Judgment: The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.07.2003, passed in on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, Nellore District. [3369] THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant against , passed in Court of the Senior Civil 2. Today, when the matter is taken up, it is brought to the notice of this Court that notice sent to the appellant returned un- served with an endorsement ‘insufficient address’, though it was sent to the address shown in the appeal. Despite the best efforts rendered by this Court, no representation has been made on behalf of the appellant. 3. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J 19th February, 2025 TJN 32 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 991 OF 2003 Dated:19.02.2025 TJN