APHC010583032011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1080/2011 Between: 1. J.S.GANESH KUMAR & 4 ORS, S/O.LATE R.J.SREERAMULU, HINDU BUSINESS R/O.11-366, RADHA BUNGALOW, OLDPET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. J.S.VIJAYA BABU, S/O.LATE R.J.SREERAMULU, HINDU BUSINESS R/O.11-366, RADHA BUNGALOW, OLDPET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. J.S.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.LATE R.J.SREERAMULU, HINDU BUSINESS R/O.11-366, RADHA BUNGALOW, OLDPET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. J.S.JAYANARAYANA, S/O.LATE R.J.SREERAMULU, HINDU BUSINESS R/O.12-299/1, M.C.R.NAGAR, MADANAPALLI ROAD, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. J.S.MURALI MOHAN, S/O.LATE R.J.SREERAMULU, HINDU BUSINESS R/O.11-366, RADHA BUNGALOW, OLDPET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. R RAJENDRAN, S/o.R.Radhakrishna, Hindu Ex.M.P.P. R/o.Radha Bungalow, Oldpet, Palamaner, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT 2 JS,J W.P.No.1080/2011 IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CMAMP 1868 OF 2011 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 grant interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or in any way demolishing or altering the physical features of the plaint schedule properties in OS No.20/2011 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the above CMA IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 626 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 vacate the status quo order made in CMA MP No. 1868 of 2011 in CMA No. 1080 of 2011, dt. 16-11-2011 and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. S V SUNDARARAJAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P RAVI KIRAN 3 JS,J W.P.No.1080/2011 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: No representation for the appellants. On the earlier occasions also i.e., on 11.07.2025, 01.08.2025 and 29.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today there is no representation for the appellants. It appears that the appellants are not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 12.09.2025 KAS