Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23178 (AP)

APPIKONDA APPARAO v. CHILAKA NIRMALA

CRP/3606/2019 · 2026-02-10

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010803242018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 6323 of 2018, 3599 & 3606 of 2019 C.R.P.No.6323 of 2018: Between: 1. APPIKONDA RAJU, W/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHILAKA NIRMALA, W/O. TRINADHA, AGED 42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. APPIKONDA HARINI, W/O. LATE DEVI, HINDU, AGED 22 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. D.NO.6-5-7, BHOOPALARAO STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. APPIKONDA APPA RAO, S/O. AKKAYYA, AGED 62 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. APPIKONDA DAVID DIED, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. APPIKONDA ANAND, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P.No.3599 of 2019: Between: 1. APPIKONDA APPA RAO, S/O. AKKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. APPIKONDA ANAND, , S/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HINDU, AUTO DRIVER, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CHILAKA NIRMALA, W/O. TRINADHA, AGED 43 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. APPIKONDA HARINI, W/O. LATE DEVI, HINDU, AGED 23 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. D.NO.6-5-7, BHOOPALARAO STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. APPIKONDA RAJU, W/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. APPIKONDA DAVID DIED, A ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P.No.3606 of 2019: Between: 1. APPIKONDA APPARAO, S/O. AKKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA 3 MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. APPIKONDA RAJU,, W/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CHILAKA NIRMALA, W/O. TRINADHA, AGED 43 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. CHILAKAPALEM VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. APPIKONDA HARINI, W/O. LATE DEVI, HINDU, AGED 23 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O. D.NO.6-5-7, BHOOPALARAO STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORAL COMMON ORDER: There is no representation on behalf of both the parties. 2. C.R.P.No.6323 of 2018 is filed challenging the Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.2309/2017 in O.S.No.64/2014 on 19.07.2018. 3. C.R.P.No.3599 of 2019 is filed challenging the Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.2191/2018 in O.S.No.64/2014 on 13.11.2019. 4. C.R.P.No.3606 of 2019 is filed challenging the Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No.2193/2018 in O.S.No.64/2014 on 13.11.2019. 4 5. While these Civil Revision Petitions stood for consideration, the information, which is placed on record, would indicate that the main Suit bearing O.S.No.64/2014 itself was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam without costs on 03.01.2024. 6. Having noted the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:11.02.2026 Vns