Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31135 (AP)

B RAMAPPA, CHITTOOR DIST v. U SUBBARAYAPPA, CHITTOOR DIST & 7 OTHERS

CRP/1212/2016 · 2025-07-22

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010456032016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1212/2016 Between: 1. B RAMAPPA, CHITTOOR DIST, S/O. CHINNA MUNEPPA. AGED 56 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT NAYANIVARIALLE. H/O. KURABALAKOTA MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. U SUBBARAYAPPA CHITTOOR DIST 7 OTHERS, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH. AGED 56 YEARS, HINDU. RESIDING AT NAYANIVARIALTE. H/O. KURABALAKOTA MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. KARASASI BAYYA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, HINDU. OCC: CULTIVATION RESIDING AT KANASANIVARIPALE. H/O. KURABALAKOTA MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. M VENKATA SIDDULAMMA, W/O. ANANDA REDDY. AGED 50 YEARS. 4. SASIKALA, W/O. VISWANATH. AGED 30 YEARS. 5. SWAPNA, - 6. M SANKAR REDDY, 7. MULINTI NARAYANA REDDY, - 8. M VENKATA REDDY, AGED 51 YEARS. 3 TO 8 ARE HINDUS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF BAYYA REDDY, CULTIVATION. R/O. MULAKALAVARIPALLE H/O. ANGALLU. KURABALAKOTA MANDAL. 2 CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PETITION) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toagainst the Order and Decree, dated 18-11-2015 passed in O.E.P.No.75 of 2006, on the file of the 1st Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 1528 OF 2016 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 fix an early date for hearing the Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V SUNDARARAJAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA 3 The Court made the following Order: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. 2. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. 3. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 23.07.2025 BMS