Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34947 (AP)

PILLA SRI LALITHA @ GUNNANNA SRI LALITHA v. GUNNANA KURMA RAO

CMA/368/2007 · 2025-02-17

Challa Gunaranjan, Ravi Nath Tilhari

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010548842007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3509] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 368/2007 Between: Pilla Sri Lalitha @ Gunnanna Sri Lalitha ...APPELLANT AND Gunnana Kurma Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 368/2007 JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) This appeal was filed by the wife being aggrieved from the rejection of her petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act by an order dated 08.03.2007 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. 2. Sri P.Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment. 3. The docket order shows that on 30.11.2023 and 11.12.2023 none appeared. The matter was directed to be posted under the caption „for dismissal‟. On 13.12.2023, learned counsel for the appellant appeared and sought adjournment to obtain instructions. The matter was adjourned. On 04.01.2024 none appeared for the appellant. The matter was again directed to be listed under the caption „for dismissal‟. On 05.01.2024, again the matter was directed to be listed after Sankranthi Vacation, 2024 under the same caption. 4. The matter pertains to the year 2007 and is listed in the weekly list. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the request for adjournment is refused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the arguments inspite of opportunity being granted. 7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for “want of prosecution”. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Dated: 17.02.2025 AG 173 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 368/2007 Dated:17.02.2025 AG