APHC010551002001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL SUIT NO: 38/2001 Between: 1. INTERFACE SHIPPING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,., REP. DIRECTOR. (SRI R.GOPAL). OFFICE AT 1/109, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, SIVABUTHAM CHENNAI-602 102. ...PLAINTIFF AND 1. M V VAST BANGALORE 3 OTHERS, BERTHED AT M-1 BERTH, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT. VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REP. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR. PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE PORT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM POST AUTHORITY VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE TRAFIC MANAGER, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Owners and all Parties interested in the Vessel M.V.Vast Bangalore were made Parties to the Suit as 1st Defendant. But the Written Statement has been filed by 'Crostis Limited' alone styling itself as the 1st Defendant and claiming that the Original Owners had given the said Vessel to it under a 'Bare Boat Charter Party'. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2001(APPL 1456 OF 2001 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 order immediate arrest and/or sequestration and/or attachment and/or retention of the vessel M.V.Vast, respondent No.1, lying in the post and harbour of Visakhapatnam. IA NO: 2 OF 2001(APPL 1477 OF 2001 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 tp pass an order to raise the arrest of the vessel M.V.Bangalore all the conditions of the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee in lieu of bail and allowing the petitioners vessels there of and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2004(APPL 556 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2004(APPL 1256 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 3 OF 2004(APPL 1257 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 4 OF 2004(APPL 2888 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 5 OF 2004(APPL 3867 OF 2004 3 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 IA NO: 6 OF 2004(APPL 6376 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 7 OF 2004(APPL 6697 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 9 OF 2004(APPL 8262 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 10 OF 2004(APPL 8263 OF 2004 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2006(APPL 7329 OF 2006 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(APPL 110 OF 2009 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 implead M/s Puyvas Chartering BV of Noordwijk, Netheerlads as the 3rd Defendant in the civil suit as also the interlocutory applications. IA NO: 2 OF 2009(APPL 534 OF 2009 4 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 Counsel for the Plaintiff: 1. D V SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SRI RAGHU RAM 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL SUIT NO: 38/2001 JUDGMENT: None appears for the appellant and defendant No.1. 2. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 4 is present. 3. The matter was listed on 03.03.2025, 20.03.2025, 09.05.2025, 25.04.2025, 06.05.2025, 18.06.2025, 11.07.2025 & 31.07.2025 and now for leading evidence of the plaintiff. In most of the aforesaid dates, there was no representation for the plaintiff and for defendant No.1. On 09.04.2025, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff stated that they have to get instructions whether to adduce any evidence or not and sought time. Accordingly, the suit was adjourned to 25.04.2025. However, there was no representation for the plaintiff on that particular date. 4. This Court on 25.04.2025 passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the defendants is present. Upon perusal of the proceedings sheet, it is noted that on each occasion, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that necessary steps would be taken to secure the presence of the witness by the plaintiff and that he needs to obtain instructions to confirm whether there is any such evidence to be led. However, the fact remains that no progress has been made in this matter since long time. 6 Hence, the plaintiff is directed to either adduce evidence, if any, or report no further evidence on the next date of hearing.” 5. The suit was again adjourned to 06.05.2025. As there was no representation for either side, this Court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff and adjourned the suit for the defendants’ evidence. On 18.06.2025, none appeared for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents requested time to ascertain whether they would intend to lead any evidence. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 02.07.2025. There was no representation for defendant No.1 on 11.07.2025, and even today. 6. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 4 is present and submits that they are only formal parties. 7. The sequence of dates narrated above indicates that due to none appears of learned counsel for the plaintiff, evidence came to be closed on 06.05.2025. Further, even defendant No.1 also remained absent nor any witness has been produced to lead evidence. In view of the same, though this Court has granted multiple opportunities to both plaintiff and defendant No.1, who are contesting parties in the suit, they have failed to lead evidence or pursue the matter. 7 8. In view of the same, this Court has no other option but to presume that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 14.08.2025 ANS 8 250 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL SUIT NO: 38/2001 Date: 14.08.2025 ANS