Gadicherla Srinivas v. Gadicherla Lachavva

[ 32s81 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD A/ONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU SECOND APPEAL NO: 907 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 15.02.2017 made in A.S.No.40 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District Judge, Siddipet, preferred against the decree in O.S.No.24 of 2009 dated 10.07.2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet. Between:

Gadicherla Srinivas, S/o. Late Pedda Balanarsu, Occ: Manson, Rl/o H.No. 10-2-95, Narsapur, Siddipet, Medak District.

..Appel lanURespondenUDefendant AND Gadicherla Lachawa, Wo. Late Chinna Rajaiah, Occ: Agriculture, RIo H.No.-10-295, Narsapur, Siddipet, IVledak District. ...RespondenUAppellanUPlaintiff |.A-NO: 1 OF 201ZSAMP. NO: 1819 OF 2017\ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment and decree, dt.15.02.2017 in A.S. No.40/2013 passed by the Vl Additional District Judge at Siddipet Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU SECOND APPEAL NO.9O7 OF 2OI7 / JUDGMENT:

As r:ouid bc seen from the proceeding sheet, it is palpable that on 07.O2.2O23 and 05.06.2023, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to bring the legal representatives of the sole appellant on record.

2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counscl for the appellant has informed this Court that since the sole appellant died long back, he addressed a letter to the son of the appellant, but there is no response. Thus, it appears that that the legal heirs of the deceased-sole appellant are not interested in prosecuting this appeal anymore. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

3.

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR cy, \ SECTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY'

1. The Vl Additional District Judge at Siddipet, Medak District (With records)

2. One CC to SRl. tt/. DAMODAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies R CH )

HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910612023 {Hc r,^lfi.

JUDGMENT

l) O 2 AIJG 2U8 , = (1 S.A.No.907 of 2017 9Fsn^,tca '

--t tq DISMISSING THE S.A.

FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS