Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24043 (AP)

DOKALA BALAGANGADHAR THILAK (DIED0 v. DUSA AUDINARAYANA RAO (DIED)

CRP/4269/2018 · 2026-03-09

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010474562018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4269/2018 Between: 1. DOKALA BALAGANGADHAR THILAK (DIED0, PROP-SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES (DIED) 2. DOKALA PARVATHI,, PROP- SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA AGRO INDUSTRIES, W/O LATE BALAGANGADHARA TILAK, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BUSINESS, PROP- SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA AGRO AND AUTO SERVICES, RAMA LAKSHMANA JUNCTION, GT ROAD, SRIKAKULAM. 3. DOKALA KRISHNA PRASAD,, S/O LATE BALA GANGADHARA TILAK, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O 3-2-18, SRI VISAKHA A COLONY, GT ROAD, RAMALAKSHMANA JUNCTION, SRIKAKULAM. 4. DOKALA VIJAYA KUMAR,, S/O LATE BALA GANGADHARA -TILAK, HINDU, AGED 37 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O 3-2-18, SRI VISAKHA A COLONY, GT ROAD, RAMALAKSHMANA JUNCTION, SRIKAKULAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. DUSA AUDINARAYANA RAO DIED, SRIKAKULAM 2. DUSA SAROJINI RAMAYAMMA DIED, SRIKAKULAM 3. DUSA SAHITYA BALARAM, ADOPTED SON OF DUSA AUDINARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 19 YEARS, STUDENT, R/O 19-34/24/A AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT VISAKHA B COLONY, SRIKAKULAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to allow the CRP by setting aside the order and decretal order in I.A.No.205 of 2018 in O.S.No.15 of 2013 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam dated- 12-04-2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 stay all further proceedings in OS.NO.15/2013 on the file of the Judge, Family court cum III Additional Dist. Judge, Srikakulam pending disposal of the main CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K VENKAT RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2. 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4269 of 2018 The Court made the following Order: Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri K.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the main suits itself was dismissed on 28.08.2025 and as such, the cause in the present Civil Revision Petition does not survives for further adjudication. 2. Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the said submission. 3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 10.03.2026 PSA