APHC010843952002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: Between: M.muni Velu Reddy C Navaneethamma Ors Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1. This Second Appeal has Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 1998 on the file of III Additional Appellate Court’) confirming O.S.No.12 of 1992 (O.P.No.15 of 1991) Puttur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) 2. In the Trial Court, 1st O.S.No.12 of 1992 (O.P.No.15 of 1991) properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff and for separate possession. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 367/2002 ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent: P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Appellant against the Decree and Judgment dated 20.11.2001, in A.S.No. III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (for short, ‘the 1 Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 21.11.1997 (O.P.No.15 of 1991) on the file of Subordinate Judge Court’). st Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in 1992 (O.P.No.15 of 1991), for partition of plaint A schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff and [3369] TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT Appellant / 3rd , in A.S.No.1 of , (for short, ‘the 1st 21.11.1997, in Subordinate Judge, Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in partition of plaint A schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to the Plaintiff and 2 3. In the morning session, when the matter was called for hearing, neither the Appellant nor the Respondents were represented. As a result of their absence, the matter was subsequently passed over until 2:15 PM. 4. In the afternoon session as well, there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellant. Despite the matter being specifically listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, no representation was forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant. This consistent absence strongly indicates a lack of intent or interest on his part to further proceed with the Appeal. 5. Consequently, due to the persistent absence of the Appellant and his failure to appear, the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed for default. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Appeal, shall stand closed. _______________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 27.01.2025 SAK 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO S.A.No.367 of 2002 Date: 27.01.2025 SAK