IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 174 OF 2011 Between: 1. Gudivida Lakshmanadas (Died), 2. Gudivida Rambai, Wo Late Lakshmanadas, aged 60 yrs. Housewife R/o Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. 3. Gudivida Varalakshmi, W/o Late Shankar Rao R/o Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam 4. Gudivida Venkataramana, S/o. Late Lakshmanadas Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam District. 5. Gudivida Manmadhara Rao, S/o. Late Lakshmanadas, R/o Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam 6. Gudivida Seetharamaraju, S/o. Late Lakshmanadas, KondammapetaVillage, Rajam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. 7. Manam Kanyakumari, W/o Govinda Rao, aged 36 yrs. Housewife R/o Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam District. 8. Satyavarapu Punyavathi, W/o Ravikumar, aged 30 yrs. Housewife R/o Kondammapeta Village, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam District. aged 38 yrs. Housewife District. ■i, aged 40 yrs, R/o aged 38 yrs District. aged 33yrs, R/o ...APPELLANTS AND Kummarigunta Seshacharyulu, S/q Late Appafacharyulu, aged 50 yrs, Hindu, R/o Rajeevpeta, Kancharam Post, Rajam Mandalam Srikakulam District. J'/s- ...RESPONDENT Appeal under section 100 of CPC., against the allowing the appeal AS No. 51 of 2008 dated 24-09-2010 on the file of the District Judge at Visakhapatnam, in reversing the decree and judgment of suit O S. No. 37 of 2006 dated 24-03-2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011 (SAMP. NO: 395 OF 20111 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 issue direction to the respondent herein not sell the suit schedule property in Sy.No. 37-1 of an extent of Ac 1-06 cents (1-16 stated by the defendant) situated in Gopalpuram Village, Rajam Mandalam, Srikakulam District. cents as Counsel for the Appellants: SRI. K PURUSHOTHAM, no representation Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT / »■ n THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO: 174 of 2011 JUDGMENT: When the matter has been listed today under the Caption ‘For Dismissal’, none appeared for the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) present. 2. It seems that the appellants are not inclined to prosecute the appeal. 3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. 4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER i To, 1. The District Judge at Srikakulam, Srikakulam District (with records if any) 2. The Senior Civil Judge at Rajam, Srikakulam District 3. One CC to SRI. K PURUSHOTHAM, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Smt. T V SRI DEVI, Advocate [OPUO 5. The section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati 6. Three CD Copies skm ns p . HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 JUDGMENT s fe 0 7 MAR 2075 ^ * Currant Section SA.No.174of 2011 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS