Kandula , Nagavelli Sravani v. Kandula Shyam Kumar

\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE II/VO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA TR.C.M.P.NO: 681 OF 2016 Between:

Kandula @ Nagavelli Sravani, W/o Kandula Shyam Kumar, D/o Nagavelli Sathesh, Aged :24 years, Occ: House wife, R/o # 9-9-175/3, Yellam Bazar, Warangal District, Telangana State.

AND ...PET|T|ONER (WIFE) Kandula Shyam Kumar, S/o K.R.K. Prasad, Aged : 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, Rt/o # Plot No. 576, S.K.D. Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana state'

...RESP'NDENT (HUSBAND) '

Petition under Section 24 ol lhe C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to transfer the O.P.No. '1435 of 20'16 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District of the Family Court Judge at Warangal District.

TRCMPMP. NO: 797 OF 2016 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No. 1435 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Srl V.Raju, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Respondent not appearing by person or by Advocate. The Court made the following: ORDER

I5S,l TITANSFER CMP.No. 681 of 2015 HO\OI,R.-TIBLD SMT.JUSTICD P. SRDII SLIDTL{ TIUI,NSFER CMP.No.68l OF 2016 ORDER:

This Transfer CMP is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to transfer the OP.No.1435 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy district to that of the Court of Family Court Judge, Warangal district' 2.

On 08-12-2016 notice before admission was ordered and the counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due and to file proof of service and the matter was directed to be listed after service of notice. In Tr'CMP.No. 797 of 2O'16, this court heard the matter and recorded that as the wife's inconvenience, financial weakness and incapacity to undertake to travel and attend the case filed by the husband in a court at a place, which is away from the place of her residence require detailed examination, there shall be interim stay as prayed for until further orders.

3.

Since 0B-11-2021 the counsel for the petitioner called absent and no representation. Notice of respondent returned un-served, Hence, fresh notice to P

I5S,], TRAI\ISFER CMP.No. 681 of 2016 respondent wai ordered including personal notice and directed to list the matter on 14-12-2021.

4.

On 14-12-2021 when the matter was listed the counsel for the petitioner called absent and proof of service is not filed and matter was directed to be listed on 04-1-2022.

5.

Since 20-01-2021 there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter is adjourned from time to time. on 21-04-2022 when the matter was listed the counsel for the petitioner called absent. This court recorded that on 27-10-2016. IB-ll-2016, 20-01-2021. 1O-2-2O2 and 10-03-2022' there is no repre5entation on behalf of the petitioner. lt seems that he has no interest to pursue the litigation and directed to list the matter on 06-06-2022 under the caption "for dismissal", 6.

As can be seen from the proceeding sheet of this Transfer CMP, the counsel for the petitioner argued the matter on 08-12-2016, and this court after hearing the matter, recorded reasons and granted interim stay as prayed until further orders in Tr.CMP.No. 797 of 2016. Since then, till date, the counsel for the petitioner is not evincing any kind of interest to appear and represent the matter before this court. Moreover. he did not file proof of service of personal notice on the respondent and the notice on the respOndent also returned un-served.

r5S, I, TRANSFER CMP.No. 681 of 2016 ln the considered opinion of this court, the counsel for the petitioner is not evincing any kind of interest in representing the matter despite the matter listed under the caption "lor dismissaf' and the conduct of the petitioner is also not diligent enough in prosecuting the matter as well after obtaining interim stay. 7.

For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this court has left with no other option but to dismiss, the Transfer cMP.No.68l of 2016 for non-prosecution.

8. ln the result. the Transfer CMP.681 of 2016 stand dismissed for non-prosecution. consequently, the interim stay Sranted in Transfer CMP.MP.No.797 of 2016 shall stand dissolved.

g.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sd/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

SE FFICER To The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' (with records' if #l "a ," sri v Raiu, Advocate (oPUC) Two CD Copies One Spare Copy 4"

2.

3.

4.

Kj

I I HIGH COURT DATED:08i06/2022 ORDE R 2e TRCMP.No.681 of 2016 DISMISSING THE TR.CMP FOR NON.PROSECUTION 0 d /x- ,/,