Sagar Thermit Corporation Ltd., v. B.Surender Reddy

\- t 3208 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA PEAL SUIT NO: 13 Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2009 in O.S.No.1805 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Between:

Sagar Thermit Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, K. Udayananda Reddy, Plot No. 8-67, 68 A.P.l.E., Hyderabad - 500 037. K.Udayananda Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ: Managing Director Plot No. 8-67, 68 A.P.|.E., Hyderabad - 500 037. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS AND B. Surender Reddy, S/o Amrutha Reddy, aged about 41 years, Occ: Business Rl/o. H.No. 1-1-14, Plot No. 30, Opp Janapriya Apartments, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PI-AINTtFF ASMP. NO: 379 0F 2010 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 to stay the operation and execution of the Decree passed by the Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No. 1805 of 2005, dated 15-06-2009. Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABTE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA APP L SUIT No. 137 ()F 2010 JUDGMENT:

Plaintiff filed O.S.No.1805 of 2005 on the fite of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at l.B.Nagar, Hyderabad for recovery of money and the same was decreed, against which the I defendants therein preferred the present Appeal Suit before this I I Court.

2.

A perusal of the docket proceedings shows that the learned counsel for the appellants did not evince any interest to pursue the present appeal proceedings. On 11.09.2023 there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption .for dismissal'. Even today also, there is no representation for the appellants. No purpose would be served in continuing the Appeal Suit.

3.

Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SdA T. SRINIVAS //TRUE COPY// OEPUTYEEGISTRAR a,/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

2. One CC to SRl. D JAIPAL REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. L PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies rYH/PRr\;\zr--

4,,.'p /!-.:.^,.

\ HIGH COURT DATED:26l0gl2t23

JUDGMENT

AS.No.137 of 2010 (oR THE S 14 r)) 0 4 tttAfl 20?4 rI?

, ,]) ,a Sbtrn,-rED * DISMISSING THE APPEALSU!T N s