APHC010166642017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 675/2017 Between: 1. DODDA KEZIA & 3 OTHERS, D/O LATE DODDA EZEKIEL PURNACHANDRA SUDHEER RAO, CHRISTIAN, 40 YRS STUDENT, R/O D NO: 26/136, BITTAIAHPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST, AP (DEFENDANT NO:6) 2. DODDA SINDHIA, D/O LATE DODDA EZEKIEL PURNACHANDRA SUDHEER RAO, CHRISTIAN, 38 YRS STUDENT, R/O D NO: 26/136, BITTAIAHPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST, AP (DEFENDANT NO:7) 3. DODDA VICTOR BHUSHANAM, S/O LATE DODDA EZEKIEL PURNACHANDRA SUDHEER RAO, CHRISTIAN, 35 YRS STUDENT, R/O D NO: 26/136, BITTAIAHPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST, AP (DEFENDANT NO:S) 4. MARY GRACE, W/O LATE DODDA EZEKIEL PURNACHANDRA SUDHEER RAO, CHRISTIAN, 68 YRS, TEACHER, R/O D NO: 26/136, BITTAIAHPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST, AP (RESPONDENT NO:6 VIDE ORDER IN IA 123 OF 2013 IN AS 64 OF 2003, DT 8.9.2016) ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. DODDA MANESH MOHAN DAS EMMANUEL 7 OTHERS, S/O LATE BHUSHANAM, CHRISTIAN, AGE 70 YRS PASTOR, R/O 26/136, BUTTAIAHPET, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DIST AP (PLAINTIFF) 2 2. DODDA VIDYAVATHI, W/O LATE EARNEST SUBRAMANIAN, CHRISTIAN, AGE 80 YRS, RETD TEACHER, R/PENTECOSTAL MANSION, SANTHINAGAR, NEW KARASA, N A D ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM, (DEFENDANT 1) 3. DODDA ANTHONY NITYANANDA RAO, S/O LATE BHUSHANAM, CHRISTIAN, AGE 62 YRS, ACCOUNTANT IN SINGARENI COROLLARIES COMPANY LTD,. R/O SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE NAGAR, RAMAVARAM, KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DIST. (DEFENDANT 2) 4. DODDA ANITHA, D/O LATE DODDA SAMUEL NOBLE PRABHAKAR RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGE 50 YRS, NUN (SISTER), RIO SECUNDERABAD, C/O THE PENTECOSTAL MISSION, WEST MAREDIPALLI, SECUNDERABAD (DEFENDANT 3) 5. DODDA BABITHA, D/O LATE DODDA SAMUEL NOBLE PRABHAKAR RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGE 48 YRS, NUN (SISTER), RIO MADRAS, C/O THE PENTECOSTAL MISSION, ADAYAR, MADRAS (DEFENDANT 4) 6. DODDA SUNITHA, D/O LATE DODDA SAMUEL NOBLE PRABHAKAR RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGE 45 YRS, NUN (SISTER), R/O MADRAS, C/O THE PENTECOSTAL MISSION, ADAYAR, MADRAS (DEFENDANT 5) 7. DODDA EPHRAHIM RANGANAYAKULU PAUL, S/O LATE DODDA BHUSHANAM, CHRISTIAN, AGED 65 YRS, EMPLOYEE, SINGARENI COLLORIES, R/O D NO 47, MARKET AREA, MANDAMARRI SINGARENI COLLARIES & COMPANY LTD,. ADHILABAD DIST,.( DEFENDANT NO 9) 8. DODDA SUMATHI DEVI, W/.O V J DANIEL, CHRISTIAN, AGED 65 YRS , TEACHER, R/O 57/76-1, CHANDANAGAR, HYDERABAD : 500118 (DEFENDANT NO. 10) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersto set aside the Judgment & Decree 22.02.2017 passed in AS No.64 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge, Krishna Machilipatnam preferred against the Judgment & Decree dt.22.04.2003 passed in OS No.150 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam and confirming the udgment and Decree passed in OS No.150 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam with costs by allowing Appeal. 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1126 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 to stay all further proceedings in OS No.150 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam till pending disposal of the above CMA. IA NO: 3 OF 2017(CMAMP 21484 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. RAVI KUMAR TOLETY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A HANUMANTHA REDDY The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 675/2017 JUDGMENT: When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the docket order that there was no representation on behalf of the appellants on 29.12.2025, as per the notice the notices were returned with an endorsement “refused”. Therefore, it appears that neither the appellants nor their counsel are interested to prosecute the appeal. and the matter was posted to today under the caption „for dismissal‟. But, today also there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. This indicates that the appellants are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 3300..1122..22002255 RRM MDD 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 675/2017 3300..1122..22002255 RRM MDD