Valisetti Manohar v. Ankati Satyamaiah , Satyam

[ 3208 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA SECOND APPEAL NO: 1653 OF 2004 Appeal under Section '100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2004 made in A.S.No.10 ol 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Addl. District Judge,(lll FCT),Miryalguda .

Preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in O_S. Dated 19.01.2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalguda No. 41 of 2002 Between:

Valisetti Manohar, S/o. Late V. Yella Ramulu Doctor R/o. Vidyanagar Colony, Nalgonda Town.

...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT/PLAI NTIFF AND Ankati Satyamaiah , Satyam, S/o. Rajamallaiah Business R/o. 19430, Reddy Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda Dist.

...RESPONDENT/APPELIANT/DEFENDANT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(SAMP. NO: 13399 OF 20041 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 suspend the operation and execution of the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No. 1012004 dated 25-10-2004 on the file of V Addl. Dist. Judge (lll Fast Track), Miryalaguda pending disposal of above second appeal . Counsel for the Appellant(s);SRl. SERLA PANDARI Counsel for the RespondentiVENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABTE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA SECOND APPEAL NO. 1653 OF 2OO4 JUDGMENT:

Appellant/Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.4t of ZOO2 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, for recovery of money. The trial Court decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant preferred appeal vide A.S.No.10 of 2004 wherein the appellate Court allowed the appeal, against which the second appeal has been filed. 2.

A perusal of the docket proceedings shows that the learned counsel for the appellant did not evince any interest to pursue the second appeal proceedings. On 08.0g.2023, as there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'for dismissal,. Even today also, there is no representation for the appellant. No purpose would be served in continuing the Second Appeal. 3.

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-M. RAMANA KRISHNA OEPUTYREGISTRAR \/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The

2. The

3. One

4. One

5. Two g AR g[ig1t-[1t#**[.*-uffi //TRUE COPY// R e c' rd s , il "

I I HIGH COURT DATED:271O912023 1$C aTAt{r o

JUDGMENT

{t c.J 1 2 tEB 202[ os SA.No.1653 ol 2004 i'- ' rtltl', ..-\'/'

;

l i I I I I i I l I I I i THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS I € fo r-4^