APHC010540192004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] WEDNESDAY,THE 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: 3599/2004 Between: 1. G.VEERA BABU, S/O. BHASKARA RAO R/O.P.C.NO.357, A.R. TH PLATFORM RAILWAY STATION ...APPELLANT AND 1. G KRISHNA VENI, W/O. VEERA BABU R/O. D.NO. 24-1-183, SAMBA MURTHY ROAD DURGAP;URAM 2. G ADITYA VARDHAN MINOR, S/O. VEERA BABU R/O. D.NO. 24-1-183, SAMBA MURTHY ROAD DURGAP;URAM 3. G CHAITANYA KRISHNA MINOR, S/O. VEERA BABU R/O. D.NO. 24-1-183, SAMBA MURTHY ROAD DURGAP;URAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal against the Judgement and decree dated 3-7-2004 made in os No. 101 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Court Court, Vijayawada. IA NO: 1 OF 2004(ASMP 13970 OF 2004 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 of all further proceedings in further of the decree dated 3-7-2004 made in OS No. 101 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Family Court cum-IV Additinal District & Sesssions Court Vijayawada Subject to the condition that the 2 petitioner continues to pay to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month pending disposal of tlhe main appeal IA NO: 4 OF 2004(ASMP 48821 OF 2004 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 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KOKA RAGHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) In the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, the wife and children of the present appellant, the maintenance was awarded. 2. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. On 11.12.2025, the following order was passed: < Learned counsel for the appellant is not present. As the matter is of the year 2004 and being listed after long time, to give one more opportunity, list next week.= 4. None appears to press the appeal. 5. The Appeal Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. 3 _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 07.01.2026 Pab 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 3599 of 2004 DATE: 07.01.2026 Pab