Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5466 (AP)

RAMALAKSHUMMA v. MITALGIRI ABDUL (Q) TAILOR ABDUL & ANOTHER

CRP/4464/2017 · 2026-07-13

Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date of reserved for orders : Nil Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading : 18.07.2026 APHC010093662017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3606] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4464/2017 Between: 1. RAMALAKSHUMMA, W/O RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 74 YRS, HINDU, WIDOW, RESIDENT OF D. NO.22/122, NAGULAKATTA STREET, AMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MITALGIRI ABDUL Q TAILOR ABDUL ANOTHER, SON OF NOT KNOWN, MUSLIM, AED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT MITAIGIRI STREET, JANMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. DALAR SHABBIR, S/O RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MUSLIM, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT GADDAVEETHI, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 against the order in I.A No.743 of 2014 in OS No.181 of 2009 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District dated 27.10.2015 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 5856 OF 2017) 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 condone the delay of 580 days in filing the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N PARAMESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): Nil The Court made the following: 1. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4464/2017 ORDER: In the previous proceedings dated 02.07.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter today under the caption "For Dismissal". Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the present revision is preferred against the order dated 27.10.2015 passed in I.A.No.743 of 2014 in O.S.No.181 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. The said I.A. was filed seeking condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 10.06.2014. The learned Judge, upon observing that there was, in fact, a delay of 105 days and that the petitioner had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, dismissed the said application. 3. Despite the matter being listed today under the caption "For Dismissal", there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, not prosecuting this case. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 14.07.2026 DSV Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 71 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4464/2017 Dated: 14.07.2026 DSV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4464/2017 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 13. 14.07.2026 PKC, J Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (vide separate order) _________ PKC, J DSV