Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28470 (AP)

ALAPATI NAGESWARA RAO v. ALAPATI SEETHAMMA AND 4 ORS

AS/979/2002 · 2026-01-04

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010834762002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 979/2002 Between: Alapati Nageswara Rao ...APPELLANT AND Alapati Seethamma And 4 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M V S SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.979 of 2002 JUDGMENT: 1. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the appellants. Sri G.Peda Babu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the respondents is present. 2. As seen from the material available on record, Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has filed a Memo, dated 22.12.2025, by serving a copy of the said memo to the learned counsel appearing for the other side, wherein it is stated that after transferring the case to Amaravati in view of shifting of High Court from Hyderabad, there is no response from the appellants, and again he addressed two (02) letters dated 28.06.2021 and 31.03.2023 respectively to the parties to take steps for changing of vakalat and also to take steps for bringing the Legal Representatives of the respondent No.1. Again, when the matter was listed on 02.12.2025, he addressed another letter on 04.12.2025 to the parties informing the same, but there is no response from the parties. Therefore, in these circumstances, he represented that there is no other option for him except to report no instructions. 3. Perused and recorded the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants. It seems that the appellants are not inclined to prosecute the appeal proceedings which are instituted in the year 2002 vide A.S.No.979 of 2002. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal suit vide A.S.No.979 of 2002 is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 05.01.2026 SRT