Kondamuri Bhoolokeswari v. Kamireddi Sattiraju (Died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.02.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and C.M.P.No.8984 of 2017 Kondamuri Bhoolokeswari

...Petitioner

Vs Kamireddi Sattiraju (died) Kamireddi Mangayamma (died) 1.Kamireddy Sitarathnam 2.Chamanula Krishnaveni 3.Kamireddy Satyanarayanna 4.Nakka Padma 5.Kamireddy Subramanyam

...Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution of India to set aside the decree and order dated 02.04.2016 passed in E.A.No.7 of 2014 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Yanam.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar 1/5

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the decree and order dated 02.04.2016 passed in E.A.No.7 of 2014 in E.P.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.236 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Yanam. 2.The Civil Revision Petition was posted for admission on 19.06.2017 and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 22.06.2017. Again on 22.06.2017, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned by two weeks and once again on 05.07.2017, the matter was listed for admission and on that day also, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time and the matter was adjourned. Further on 13.07.2017, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned by a week. Thereafter, it was listed on 02.08.2017, and adjourned by two weeks. Even on 17.02.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time and adjourned to 24.02.2020. On 24.02.2020, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner and the matter stands adjourned.

3.Again, the matter was listed on 04.03.2020, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, adjourned to 17.03.2020. On 17.03.2020 2/5

again there was no representation on the side of the petitioner counsel. 4.Today, when the matter was listed under the caption for "adjourned admission", the learned counsel for the petitioner again sought for adjournment.

5.From the above discussion, it clearly shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner has no interest to proceed the case further. Further, the Civil Revision Petition is pending for the past four years, without even admitting the same or ordering the notice. Further, mere pendency of this Civil Revision Petition would not serve any purpose. 6.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Jer To The Subordinate Judge at Yanam.

3/5

4/5

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, Jer and C.M.P.No.8984 of 2017 17.02.2021 5/5