APHC010260282019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH 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: 535/2019 Between: 1. BALABOLU RAMESH, S/O.LATE VASUDEVA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, DOCTOR, R/O FLAT NO 6, SAROJINI COURTS, RAMAJOGIPETA, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...APPELLANT AND 1. NELAPATI MOHAN RAO, S/O.LATE NARASIMHULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O.NEAR ST. FRANCIS SCHOOL, N.H.5, KONADA JUNCTION, KOTHA KOPPERLA VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. 2. M/S VIVID AVENUES PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Y.V.HARI KRISHNA, S/O.SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.D.NO.4-52-4,'1, LAWSONSBAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): this Memorandum of Regular Appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.2 of 2015, dated 03-04-2019, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court cum III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram pending disposal of the above said first appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. EDARA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) The suit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, for specific performance of contract, was decreed against the appellant/1st defendant as well as the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the 1st defendant. 2. Sri Edara Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant submits that during pendency of the appeal with the intervention of the elders and well wishers, the parties have settled 3 their dispute and in terms of the decree, the sale deed has been executed by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent. Consequently, the appellant is not pressing the appeal any further and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appears for the plaintiff/1st respondent and submits that in terms of the decree, the plaintiff had deposited the balance of the sale consideration amount in the Trial Court. He submits that, that amount may be permitted to be withdrawn. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant also submits that the cost amount as awarded under the decree, has also been deposited by the present appellant in terms of the interim order passed in the present appeal and the same may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Recording the aforesaid submissions, the Appeal Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Trial Court towards the balance of the sale consideration as also the costs. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 06.01.2026 Pab