Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22019 (AP)

SYED KHASIM v. SYED SHAMEEN AHMED & ANR

CMA/1027/2017 · 2026-02-08

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010311892017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1027/2017 Between: 1. SYED KHASIM, S/O.LATE IMAM, MULIM R/O.D.NO.23-7-6/1, SHARAF BAZAR, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SYED SHAMEEN AHMED ANR, S/O.IQBAL AHMED, MUSLIM OCC: UN-EMPLOYEED R/O.D.NO.23-7-45/2B, CHINARAVURU THOTA, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SYED AKTHARUNNISA DIED, W/O.SYED KHASIM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersCMA aggreived by the order dated 07.06.2017 in GWOP No.704/2013 on the file of the Principal District Jduge, at Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 1759 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 opertion of the decree and order dated 07.06.2017 in GWOP No.704/2013 on the file of the Principal District Jduge, at Guntur pending disposal of the main CMA IA NO: 3 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 modify the order dated 26-10-2017 passed in CMAMP No 1759 of 2017 in CMa No 1027 of 2017 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. . 2. L SRINIVASULU 3. VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY 2. CH V PRASAD BABU The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1027/2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) The respondent-father filed a petition for custody of his minor son by appointing him as guardian vide GWOP.No.704 of 2013, which was allowed on 07.06.2017. Aggrieved by the same the maternal grandfather filed the present appeal. 2. On 23.12.2025, there was no representation for the appellant. However, considering the nature of the appeal, this Court directed the matter be posted after Sankranthi Vacation, 2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 3. Today also there is no representation for the appellant. 4. The matter pertains to the year 2017 and is listed under the caption ‘old matters’. The cause-list mentions that the old matters may not be adjourned. 5. In view of the above, 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 Dated: 09.02.2026 AG 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1027/2017 Dated: 09.02.2026 AG