Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28500 (AP)

KOMMIREDDY NARENDRA REDDY v. DEVATHI SUDHAKAR RAO

AS/1110/2017 · 2026-02-01

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010867962017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3524] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 1110/2017 Between: 1. KOMMIREDDY NARENDRA REDDY, S/O LATE RAGHU RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU DOOR NO. 27/1/1054, BALAJI NAGAR NELLORE. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DEVATHI SUDHAKAR RAO, S/o Late Seshaiah, Aged about 57 years, Hindu, R/o 7/255, Main Bazar, Atmakur Village, Sri PottiSriramulu, Nellore District ...RESPONDENT APPEAL SUIT NO: 1141/2017 Between: 1. KOMMAREDDY NARENDRA REDDY, S/O. LATE RAGHU RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU DOOR NO. 27/1/1054, BALAJI NAGAR POTTI SRI RAMULU NELLORE. ...APPELLANT AND 1. DEVATHI SUDHAKAR RAO, S/o Late Seshaiah, aged about 57 years, Hindu, R/o 7/255, Main Bazar, Atmakur Village, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. ...RESPONDENT 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. P S P SURESH KUMAR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NOs: 1110 and 1141 /2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Request has been made by Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel, for adjournment, submitting that his bundle is misplaced. 2. As per the docket orders dated 16.11.2023, 30.11.2023, 05.01.2024, 25.11.2024, 09.12.2024, 23.12.2024, 20.01.2025, 06.03.2025, 16.04.2025, 02.09.2025, 23.09.2025, 04.11.2025 and 25.11.2025, the following orders were passed: “16.11.2023: At request of the learned counsel for the appellant/(s), post after two weeks. 30.11.2023: At request of the learned counsel for the appellant, post after two(02) weeks. 05.01.2024: At request of the learned counsel for the appellant, post after Sankranthi Vacation, 2024. 25.11.2024: At request of learned counsel for the appellant, list the appeal on 09.12.2024: In the meantime, the paper booklets be filed in all respects. 09.12.2024: At the request of Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the appellants, list these cases on 23.12.2024. 4 23.12.2024: At the request made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, list the matter on 20.01.2025. 20.01.2025: At the request made on behalf of the counsel for the appellants, list these cases on 03.02.2025. 06.03.2025: At request of learned counsel for the appellant, post on 27.03.2025. 16.04.2025: Learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals prays for time to prepare and file the synopsis and to argue the matter on the next date. 2. List after three weeks. 02.09.2025: 1. No representation for the appellant in both the appeals. 2. Sri V.Siva Prasad, learned counsel appears for the respondent in both the appeals. He submits that the paper book has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applications filed by the respondent, for vacation of the stay order, have already been rejected, directing for listing the appeals for hearing. He submits that I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2018 are wrongly listed today. 4. List for hearing after two weeks. 23.09.2025: Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to prepare and submit the synopsis and list of dates and events before arguing the matter on the next date. 2.Post after four(04) weeks. 04.11.2025: No representation for the appellants. 2. Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, appears for the respondents in both the appeals. He submits that the paper book has already been prepared by the Registry. 3. As the appellants’ counsel is not present, list after three weeks. 5 25.11.2025: At the joint request of the parties counsels, list the matter in the next week.” 5. Considering the aforesaid, we do not find any justifiable cause for adjournment. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel is not able to advance arguments, in spite of the opportunity granted. 7. 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. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 02.02.2026 Pab