APHC010669782014 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: 165/2014 Between: 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, PAVAN PARADISE, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SRI MAJJI SURI BABU, S/O. APPALA NAIDU, R/O. VIJINIGIRIPALEM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. M/S DURGA TRADERS, REP.BY ITS PRPRIETOR, SMT. P.SUJATHA, W/O. MURALI, MAIN ROAD, GOPALAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 416 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 226 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 11/5/2011 passed in WC No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour- Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CMAMP 1051 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 stay the disbursement of the amounts deposited in WC.No.2 of 2009 dt. 11/05/2011 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-Visakhapatnam pending the disposal of the CMA IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 stay order dt. 25.06.2012 passed in C.M.P.No.1051 of 2012 in C.M.A.No.165 of 2014 on the file of this Hon'ble High Court against the order Dt. 11.05.2009 in W.C.No.2 of 2009 and permit the petitioner to withdraw amount pending disposal of the appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KATTA SRAVYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARAMATA MOHANRAO The Court made the following JUDGMENT: No representation for the appellant. On the earlier occasions also i.e., on 24.07.2025 and 29.08.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today there is no representation for the appellant. It appears that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the case. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 12.09.2025 KAS