APHC010391152018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 811/2018 Between: 1. KRISTIPATI JAYA RAMI REDDY AND 3 OTHERS, S/O KOTI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. MACHAVARAN VILLAGE, KANDUKUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523105. 2. BANDI PEDDA SUBBA REDDY,, S/O OBULA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. RENINGAVARAM VILLAGE, J. PANGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523261 3. DODDI CHINNA BEERAIAH,, S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI COLONY ROAD, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522003. 4. PULAGAM THIRUMALA REDDY,, S/O SIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. VENIGANDLA VILLAGE, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522-509. ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. BANDI SESHAMMA AND 3 OTHERS, W/O CHINNA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, PERMANENT R/O. PERNAMITTA, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANDANA PULLALA CHERUVU VILLAGE, KOMAROLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523327 2. BANDI VENKATESHWARA REDDY, S/O CHINNA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- CULTIVATION, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- PERNAMITTA, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANDANA PULLALA CHERUVU VILLAGE, KOMAROLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523327 3. KOPPARAPU LALITHA DEVI, W/O LATE SEETHARAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O- D.NO- 9- 2-48- COURT STREET, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523001. 4. KAMBAMPATI VENU, S/O NOT KNOWN, R/O- D. NO- 37-1-418(15), RAM NAGAR 3RD LINE, ONGOLE - 523001. ...RESPONDENT(S): to present this Memorandum of Appeal against the Judgment,dated- 28.03.2018, passed in O. S. No- 109/2013, on the file of Hon'ble Brinsipil District Judge, Prakasam, Ongole, 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 stay of execution and all further proceedings in common decree and judgment dated 28-03-2018 in OS.NO.109/2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal District Judge,Prakasam,Ongole,pending disposal of the main appeal and pass IA NO: 2 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 direct the respondents not to alienate the suit-schedule property to third parties pending disposal of the main appeal and pass IA NO: 3 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 extend the status quo granted on 11th June 2018 and on 26th June 2018 in IA.No. 1 and 2 of 2018 till disposal of the main appeal suit and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to bring the petitioner herein who is the legal representative of the deceased respondent no.3 on record and array her as respondent no.5 in the main appeal and as well as in the miscellaneous petitions and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 Pleased to implead the petitioner as party/proposed respondent No.5 to the main Appeal Suit in AS No. 811 of 2018 and pending interlocutory Application therein and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS APPEAL SUIT NO: 811/2018 JUDGMENT: The learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo dated 23.10.2025 before the Registrar (Judicial), stating that the appellants/plaintiffs, who filed A.S.No.811 of 2018 are not willing to continue the present Appeal and permit them to withdraw the above Appeal, for which the learned counsel for the respondents opposed and sought time. 2. On perusal of the decree, it is seen that the suit was filed for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction, and the same was decreed. Thereafter, the said decree was challenged by the appellants/plaintiffs. As the appellants do not want to proceed with the matter, even if time is granted as requested by the learned counsel for the respondents, no purpose will be served. Therefore, the memo is recorded. 3. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 24.10.2025 PNS