1 APHC010353792006 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: 601 OF 2006 Between: 1. Khaja Chandra Kumari, W/o Late Poorna Venkata Ramana Murali Krishna Housewife R/o 3-159/1, Water Tank Road, Hanuman Junction Krishna District 2. Khaja Hemasri Sumalatha, D/o Murali Krishna Propertis and Husband's Protection R/o Hanuman Cloth Stores, Guduvada Road, Human Junction, Krishna District 3. Khaja Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late Poorna Venkata Ramana Murali Krishna Properties R/o 3-159/1, Water Tank Road, Hanuman Junction, Krishna District ...Petitioners AND 1. Khaja Poorna Venkata Ramana Visweswara Rao, S/o Late Kutumba Rao Business R/o D.No.26-11-4, Hindi Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Kaja Poorna Venkata Ramana Murali Krishna @ Murali Krishna, S/o.Late Kutumba Rao, Hindu, Aged about 41 years, Properties and Business, Resident of D.No.26-4-5, Upstairs, Gnanalive Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. 3. Kaja Poorna Venkata Ramana Shanmukha Subrahmanyeswara Rao (Died) per L.Rs. 4. Pasumarthi Kasi Annapurna W/o.Poornachandra Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Properties and Husband’s protection, R/o.D.No.26-11-4/1, Hindu street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 5. Koppuravuri Poorna Venkata Vijaya Kumari, W/o.Sureshnadh, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Properties and Husband Protection, R/o.D.No.3/270, Patimeda, Gudivada, Krishna District. 6. Kaja Venkata Nagaraja Kumari, W/o.Late Kutumba Rao, Hindu, aged about 62 years, R/o.26-11-4, Hindi Street, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 7. K.Baghyalakshmi, W/o.Tiruveedhula Balakrishna, aged about 34 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.Lakshmi Sai Traders, Near Kothavanthena Center, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada. ...Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree in OS No.9/2000 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada. IA NO: 1 OF 2006(ASMP 1780 OF 2006 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 declare me as major or else I will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioners: PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent: V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent: MADHAVA RAO AMBADIPUDI The Court made the following order: 3 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 20.01.2026, this Court passed the following order: “A request has been made on behalf of the appellants‟ counsel for adjournment. 2. Docket order shows that on 17.03.2025 matter was adjourned on the request of the appellants counsel to obtain latest instructions. On 16.04.2025, there was no representation for the appellants and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption „for dismissal‟. On 28.04.2025 learned counsel for the appellants took time to prepare and file a paper book. On the next date, on 14.07.2025, the matter was adjourned on the request made on behalf of the appellants‟ counsel, for adjournment. On 08.09.2025 the matter was adjourned on the request made on behalf of the appellants‟ counsel. As there was no representation for the respondents on 14.10.2025, it was adjourned as last opportunity. 3. In spite of the aforesaid order, today also request has been made for adjournment for the appellant(s). 4. The appeal is of the year 2006 and being an old matter is listed under the caption „old matters‟. 5. Such a request for adjournment should have been made and the matter should have been argued. 6. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.Gagan Karthik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that he has already given No Objection Vakalat to engage another counsel and the name of another counsel is printed in the cause list. But he is also not present today. 4 7. Considering the nature of the suit, as last opportunity, post the matter in the next week. 8. No further adjournment or any ground whatsoever will be requested by either side, and if the matter is not argued on the next date, the Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders. 9. Post on 27.01.2026.” 2. Today, there is no representation for the appellants. 3. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 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 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT No:601 of 2006 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Dt: 27.01.2026 Rns