APHC010186892008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1244/2008 Between: 1. KOTA (D) PARIMALA JYOTHI, W/O. DONDAPATI YESUKARUNA PURUSHOTAMDAS DEPENDANT, R/O. GAMPALAGUDEM VILLAGE, GAMPALAGUDEM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DONDAPATI YESUKARUNA PURUSHOTHAMDASS, S/o. Suvarna Chandrahas Teacher R/o. Bapulapadu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 2294 OF 2008 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 suspend the operation of order and decree dated 02.07.2008 in I.D.O.P.No. 153/2003 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, pending disposal of the appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CMAMP 2763 OF 2008 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 2 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.M.A. NO.1244 OF 2008) vacate the interim order granted in CMAMP No.2294/2008 in CMA No.1244/2008 dated 18.10.2008 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT:-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 07.01.2026, the following order was passed : “On 16.12.2025, the following order was passed: “On 18.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:- “…..No representation from either side. However, considering the nature of the dispute and also the interim order granted, post the matter after two weeks in the “Weekly Cause List” to enable the parties’ counsel to appear and argue the case…..” 2. At the request of both the counsel, post after two weeks so as to enable them to get latest instructions. 3. It is made clear that no further adjournment would be entertained as the lis pertains to the year 2008.” 2. Learned counsels for both the sides submit that they have not been able to obtain instructions. 3. Considering that as the appeal arises out of the divorce decree and the consequences therefrom and as there is also the stay in the present C.M.A, we grant time as last opportunity to obtain instructions. 4. List on 28.01.2026.” 3 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.M.A. NO.1244 OF 2008) 2. Sri Y.Yashwanth, learned counsel representing Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellant appears and prays for adjournment to obtain instructions. 3. However, considering the previous orders dated 18.02.2025 and 07.01.2026, we do not find any justifiable reason to adjourn the matter for want of instructions and in spite of opportunity granted arguments have not been advanced. 4. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date : 28.01.2026. RPD/PBS. 4 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.M.A. NO.1244 OF 2008) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION) CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1244 OF 2008 Date: 28.01.2026 RPD/PBS.