THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO • V : CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3418 OF 2000 Petition under Section 115 of CPC to revise the Order dt14.11.1994 in I.A.No.2424 of 1994 in AS.No.8 of 1990 on the file of the court of the Addl. District Judge, Ongolu, Prakasam District. Between: 1. Shalk Abdul Majid, S/o. Abdul Rehman muslim, Age.66yrs, Occ: retired Tech, Supervisor R/o. 41-505, Kothapeta, Ardhaveedu. 2. Shaik Abdul Shukur, S/o. Abdul Rehman muslim, Age.Olyrs, Occ; retired S.l. of R/o.19-236, Cuddapah. 3. Shaik Baba, S/o. Abdul Reham muslim, Age.42yrs, Occ; Cable Jointer, Naziashabad, Hyderabad. 4. Shaik Bahadur, S/o. Shaik Abdul Reham muslim, Age.40yrs, Occ; Cable Jointer Rain Basar, Hyderabad. 5. Shaik Ameer, S/o. Shaik Abdul Rehiman muslim, Age.37yrs, Military Service, R/o. Batanda Punza, C/o. 56 A.P.O. Kurnool, now residing at (All the Petitioners are represented by PA Holder) Shaik Abdul Mazia 1 Petitioner St ...PETITIONER(S) AND t 1. Shaik Khasim Peera, @ bore Saheb, S/o Muslim, Age.48yrs, Occ; . 'Cultivator, •v zWShaik Mastavali, S/o Goresaheb, Age.36yrs, Muslim, Coolie. '*V 3." Shaik Khasimbee, W/o. Jabbar, Age.29yrs, Muslim, dependant. 4. Angam Venkata Narayana, S/o. Rangayya, Age. 33yrs, hindu Business. 5. Shaik Jabbar, S/o Dastagiri, Age.33yrs. (All respondents are residing of Bollupalli Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District.) * y \ « V « 4 0 j ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s);SRI. SINGAM VENKATA SUBBA RAO (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010502412000 f ’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wi [336&] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO \\ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3418/2000 Between: ...PETITIONER Shaik Abdul Majid Ardhaveedu Kurnooland4 AND Shaik Khasim Peera Bollupalli Prakasamand4 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SINGAM VENKATA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner-appella nt under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Order and decree, dated 14.11.1994 passed in I.A.No.2424 of 1994 in A.S.No.08 of 1990 on the file of learned Additional District Judge’s Court, Ongole, wherein the petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 and Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed for admission of additional evidence, which was dismissed. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing in the morning session, no representation on behalf of either side. The matter was subsequently passed over at 2.15 P.M. In the post lunch session also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/appellant despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for 1. 2. 3. dismissal. It seems that the petitioner/appellant is not evincing any interest to prosecute with the appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default. However, there shall be no order as to costs. % ' 4. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Revision shall stand closed. Sd/- B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to SRI. SINGAM VENKATA SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3418 of 2000 DISMISSING THE CRP FOR DEFAULT.