APHC010457482012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1144/2012 Between: 1. DESALANKA BHASKARA RAO, S/O.SWAMY, HINDU, OCC: BUSINESS R/O.DURGADA GOLLAPROLU [M], PITHAPURAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. GRANDHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.RAMAYYA, HINDU, OCC: RETD EMPLOYEE R/O.KALAVAPURVVU CENTRE, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MANDAPETA. 2. GRANDHI MANGATAYARU, W/O.SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O.KALAVAPURVVU CENTRE, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MANDAPETA. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 2148 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of judgment and decree in OS No.58/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CMAMP 2177 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 stay all further proceedings in OS No.58/2008 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Pithapuram, pursuant to the decree and judgment passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada in AS No.165/2011 dated 19.07.2012 pending disposal of the above appeal IA NO: 3 OF 2012(CMAMP 2178 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 direct the registry to refund the court fee of Rs.5,426.00 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA The Court made the following JUDGMENT: No representation for the appellant. On the earlier occasions also i.e., on 11.07.2025 and 11.09.2025, there was no representation 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 for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 18.09.2025 KAS