APHC010135502005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 457 OF 2005 Between: 1. M/s. Swing Aqua Farms (P) Ltd., rep. by Director, S. Satyanarayana Regd. Of: D.No.19-3-29C, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupathi, ...Petitioner AND 1. M/s United India Insuarance Co Ltd, rep. by Divisional Manager Off: D.No.14-2-161, T.P. Area, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. ...Respondent Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the in O.S.No.26 of 1998, dated 24-2-2005 passed by the Court of the IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi IA NO: 1 OF 2005(ASMP 1149 OF 2005 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 dispense with the production of certified copy of Page Nos.16 & 17 of the Judgment in O.S.No.26 of 1998, dated 24-2-2005 on the file of IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupathi Counsel for the Petitioner: SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 20.03.2025, the matter was adjourned at the request of the appellant’s counsel. Thereafter, on 15.12.2025 also, the matter was listed. On 19.01.2026, at the request of the appellant’s counsel, the matter was directed to be posted in the next week. The matter is listed today. 2. Today, again the counsel appearing for appellant’s counsel on record requests for adjournment, for no justifiable reason. Adjournment is not to be granted on mere asking. Appeal is of the year 2005 and is an old appeal. The request for adjournment is rejected. 3. Inspite of opportunity being granted, Sri S.Karteek, learned counsel appearing for appellant’s counsel, did not argue the matter. 4. The appeal is listed under the caption of ‘old matters’ and it is also mentioned in the cause list that the old matters may not be adjourned. 5. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dt:27.01.2026 Rns THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT No: 457 of 2005 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Dt: 27.01.2026 Rns