APHC010289262017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 287/2017 Between: 1. KOPPISETTI KASINATH, S/O VENKATA RAMANA AGED 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O NEAR CHAITANYA I.T.I. COLLEGE GAIGOLUPADU KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. J VEERA VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, S/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/0 BIVVAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. A VENKATA RAMAREDDY, S/O.VENKATARAYUDU AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O BIVVAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. NALLAILLI SUBBA REDDY, S/O. VENKATAREDDY AGED 48 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O BIVVAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. T V V SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O SURYA RAO AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O BIVVAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. T V V SATYANARAYANA REDDY, S/O PEDA SUBBARAO AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O BIVVAVOLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 6. P SURYAKANTAM, W/O SATYAM AGED 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O D. NO 5-1, VIDYANAGAR, VAKALAPUDI KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 7. K SATHIRAJU, S/O APPALASWAMY AGED 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 8. SMT RAYUDU SURYAKANTHAM, W/O VEERRAJU AGED 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O VETLAMPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 9. P SUBBAYAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA AGED 63 YEARS, R/O NEAR CHAITANYA I.T.I OPP NAVABHARAT PUBLIC SCHOOL KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 10. K VENKATRAMANA, S/O SUBBARAO AGED 64 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION R/O NEAR CHAITANYA I.T.I OPP NAVABHARAT PUBLIC SCHOOL KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 11. G RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O GOVINDU AGED 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O GAIGOLUPADU VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 12. A VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O RAMBABU AGED 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O GAIGOLUPADU VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 13. GEETALA SUNITHA, W/O SATYANANDAM AGED 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O H. NO 72/5, LIG 4TH PHASE K.P.H.B KUKATAPALLI RANGA REDDY DISTRICT 14. P RAMAKRISHNA, S/O SATYAM AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE R/O H. NO 5-1, VIDYA NAGAR VAKALAPUDI KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toagainst the Judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed in I.A. No 970/2010 in I.A. No 714/2008 in O.S. No 80/2002, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge: Kakinada IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP 5217 OF 2016 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 condone the delay of 38 days in filing the above Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 365 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 stay of all further proceedings in OS No.80/2002 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BS KARTIK & PRASAD ESR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE 2. E V V S RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following ORDER: On 16.02.2026, as there was no representation, the matter was passed over in the morning session and when it was called in the afternoon session, none appeared. 2. Again on 17.02.2026, learned counsel namely, Smt. Durga Latha, came and sought time to get instructions and the matter was adjourned to today under the caption “For dismissal”. 3. Today, when the matter is called, none appears for the petitioner. However, Sri Harsha S.Ammineni, learned counsel representing Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for respondent No.10, is present and submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. Hence, in order to ascertain the said aspect from the side of the petitioner, the matter was passed over. 4. Even in the afternoon session, there is no representation on either side. From this, it appears that the parties are not interested in prosecuting the matter. 5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 18.02.2026 GVK / MVA