Shaik Shoukath v. Shakeeb Ahmed And Another

[ 3300 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.NO: 781 OF 2008 (Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment / Decree in MVOP.No.S4S of 2004, dated 05-10-2007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Additional District, Nizamabad.) Between:

Shaik Shoukath, S/o.Shaik Mustafa, aged 40 years, Occ: Vegetable and Fruits Business, R/o.Shanthinagar, Nizamabad.

...APPELLANT AND 1 . Shakeeb Ahmed, S/o.Mohd Abdul Qayyum, Aged Major Owner of Auto Rickshaw No.AP 25 U 5412 R/o.H-No-1-6-1 13, Phulong, Nizamabad.

2. New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager O/o.Divisional Office: Malakpet Branch, 16-2-67712, 1st Floor, Tirumala Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.Y.S.YELLANAND GUPTA Counsel forthe Respondents : M/s.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following judgment : -

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M A.No.781 of 2OO8 JUDGMENT:

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.O7.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and posted to 24.O2.2023. On 24,02.2023 there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents present and requested time and posted to 10.03.2023.

2. On 10.03.2023 also there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Hence, as a final opportunity to the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for dismissal" on 24.O3.2023.

Inspite of listing the matter under the caption "for dismissal", there was no representation on behalf of the

learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, it appears that the appellant and respondents have no interest in prosecuting this case. 4.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

Sd/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Cag SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - V Additional District Judge at Nizamdbad.

2. One CC to SRI.Y.S.YELLANAND GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to M/s.KALPANA EKBOTE, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies SA w

HIGH COURT DATED:2410312023 f ?

, s s :il :

tt'

o tJ xo U.

JUDGMENT

.,lt i MACMA.No.781 of 2008 :.C \ ttrt\ ,)/'"'

;rt;'

M.A.C.M.A IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS.