BONDALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO v. TAJ MOHAMMAD KHAN & 3 ORS.
MACMA/510/2006 · 2025-06-25
B S Bhanumathi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33865 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33865 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010268242006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty sixth day of June two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: Between: Bondalapati Srinivasa Rao Taj Mohammad Khan and 3 others Counsel for the appellant:
1. N.Subba Rao Counsel for the respondents
1. Nagumantri Nageswara Rao
The Court made the following:
ORDER: This appeal is filed decree dated 13.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file of the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali.
2. Appeal against the respondent No.1 w vide court order dated 22.04.2016.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty sixth day of June two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A.No: 510 of 2006 Bondalapati Srinivasa Rao ...Appellant and Taj Mohammad Khan and 3 others
...Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 4: Nagumantri Nageswara Rao The Court made the following: This appeal is filed under Order 41 of CPC against the order and decree dated 13.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file of the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali.
2. Appeal against the respondent No.1 was dismissed for default vide court order dated 22.04.2016.
[3311] Thursday, the twenty sixth day of June two thousand and twenty five Appellant Respondents under Order 41 of CPC against the order and decree dated 13.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2002 on the file of the XI Additional District as dismissed for default
2 MACMA.No.510 of 2006
3. Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondents No.2 and 4 is present.
4. No representation to the appellant inspite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’. There was no representation for him even on 19.06.2025.
5. As such, the appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. __________________ Dt.26.06.2025 B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
PNV