Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37507 (AP)

SMT.JAJIMOGALLA NOOKALAMMA & ANOTHER v. JOGIMOGALLA VENKATARAMMANA & ANOTHER

CRLRC/2310/2012 · 2025-07-29

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010641752012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2310/2012 Between: 1. SMT.JAJIMOGALLA NOOKALAMMA & ANOTHER, W/O VENKATARAMANA R/O D.NO.1-89/1, RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, VEPAGUNTA, PENDURTHI MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. JAGIMOGALLA GOUTHAMI, D/O VENKATARAMANA R/O D.NO.1- 89/1 RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, VEPAGUNTA PENDURTHI MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. JOGIMOGALLA VENKATARAMMANA ANOTHER, S/O LATE JAGANADHAM R/O D.NO.7-7/13 PYDAMBA COLONY VENKATAPURAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 2. STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF AP., HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl.R.P to this Honourable Court against the orders made in F.C.O.P.No.168/2008 on the file of the Family Judge court, Visakhapatnam dt 09-03-2008 IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 3360 OF 2012 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 condone the delay of 883 days in representation of the Criminal Revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.2310 of 2012 ORDER: In compliance of the order of this Court dated 02.07.2025, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, submitted report, informing that notice sent to J.Venkata Ramana, respondent No.1 herein was returned un-served with an endorsement “expired and returned to sender”. 2. Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause does not survive as the respondent/husband died. 4. Considering the submissions made and in view of the report, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as cause does not survive. No order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 30.07.2025 M K K