Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57497 (AP)

D AMMAJI v. THE ASST COMMISSIONR ENDOWMENTS & ANOTHER

CMA/502/2014 · 2025-10-09

Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010521942014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 502/2014 Between: 1. D AMMAJI, W/O RAMU, D.NO.15-176/2, MARUTHINAGAR, PRAHALADAPURAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE ASST COMMISSIONR ENDOWMENTS ANOTHER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. VARAHA NARASIMHA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersaggrieved by teh Judgement and (Award and decree dt.01.03.2012 made in O.A.No.2004/2010 (O.A.No.36/2010 of DC-Vizag) on the file of A.P.Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad receivewd on 24.04.2012 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CMAMP 646 OF 2014 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 618 days in re-presenting the CMA IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CMAMP 680 OF 2014 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 all further proceedings in pursuant to Judgement (Award) and decree dated 1-3-2012 made in OA NO. 2004/2010 (O.A NO. 2004/2010 (O.A. No. 36/2010 of Dc-Vizag) on the file of A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the appeal and to pass 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MANOJ KUMAR AKULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS The Court made the following: 3 JUDGMENT: Despite the matter being listed today i.e., on 10.10.2025 under the caption ‘for Dismissal’, there is no representation for the appellant. Even on the earlier occasions, i.e., on 23.09.2025, 19.09.2025, 29.08.2025, and 25.07.2025, there was no representation for the appellant. 2. Therefore, it appears that the appellant has no interest to prosecute the case. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 10th October, 2025 cbn 4 123 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CMA No.502 of 2014 10th October, 2025 cbn