APHC010194722017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1563/2017 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER O/O.PADMALAYA BUILDING, OPP.SURYA MAHAL THEATRE, G.T.ROAD, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. RAGHUPATRUNI SUJATHA 4 ORS, W/O.LATE DHANUNJAYA @ DHANUNJAYA RAO OCC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES R/O.PALATHALAGAM VILLAGE, SANTHABOMMALI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RAGHUPATRUNI CHANDINI, D/O.LATE DHANUNJAYA @ DHANUNJAYA RAO OCC: STUDENT R/O.PALATHALAGAM VILLAGE, SANTHABOMMALI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAGHUPATRUNI DEVI PRASAD DIED, - 4. RAGHUPATRUNI BHASKARA RAO, S/O.SURYANARAYANA R/O.PALATHALAGAM VILLAGE, SANTHABOMMALI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. M SIVA PRASAD REDDY, S/O.SAMBI REDDY OWNER OF ACCIDENT VEHICLE LORRY NO.AP TT 4469 R/O.D.NO.7-80, VANIRENDLA VILLAGE, PEDDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (R5 IS NOT NECESSARY) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toallow the appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 2885 OF 2017 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 condone the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 2886 OF 2017 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 stay the execution of decree and judgement passed in MVOP No.236/2012 dated 22.12.2016 on the file the Chairman, Motor Accidenrts Claims Tribunal cum Family Court cum III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G HARAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. TANDASA RADHA RANI 2. KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY 3 The Court made the following Judgment: As seen from the docket proceedings, it reflects that the appellant’s counsel was absent for several adjournments despite the time being granted. Even today also, learned counsel for the appellant is not present. 2. On the other hand, Smt.T.Radha Rani, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, and Sri K.Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/owner of the vehicle, were present and expressed their readiness to argue the matter. 3. As the learned counsel for the appellant is absent and not evincing any interest in prosecuting the case, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date: 17.10.2025 BMS