Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32303 (AP)

P.CHANDRA REDDY v. V. SHOBHA RANI

SA/998/2005 · 2025-02-28

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010476152005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 998/2005 Between: P.Chandra Reddy ...APPELLANT AND V Shobha Rani ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M N NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 2 APHC010488232005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 769/2005 Between: P. Chandra Reddy, ...APPELLANT AND V Sobha Rani ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M N NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI The Court made the following common Judgment: The Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.03.2005, passed in A.S.Nos.107 of 2004 and 108 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent is present. 3 3. On 03.02.2025, upon being represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that, he had no instructions from the appellant, this Court ordered notice to the appellant. The notice was sent to the appellant but returned un- served with an endorsement ‘appellant deceased’. 4. Despite the best efforts by this Court, the notice was not served on the appellant and it appears that the legal representatives of the appellant are not interested to come on record to prosecute the matter. Hence, this Court has no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are 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 Date: 28.02.2025 NKA 4 32 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Second Appeal Nos.998 and 769 of 2005 Date: 28.02.2025 NKA