Draksharam Seshamamba vs Pathuri Prasad
2021 Latest Caselaw 1565 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR


                     WRIT APPEAL No.128 of 2021

                    (Taken up through video conferencing)

Draksharam Seshamamba, W/o. Sundara Murthy,
Sundaram Stone Crusher,
Nallapdu-Perecherla Road, Guntur.
                                                         ..     Appellant
      Versus

Pathuri Prasad, S/o. Kotaiah,
Aged 64 years, E/o. D.No.7-203,
Vankayalapadu Village, NH 5 Main Road,
Yadlapadu Mandal, Guntur District, and others.
                                                         ..     Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Ms. M.S. Tirumala Rani Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. V.S.K. Rama Rao

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 17.03.2021

per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Ms. M.S. Tirumala Rani, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the first

respondent-writ petitioner.

None appears for the State. It is seen that the name of the

Government Pleader for the concerned Department of the State is not

reflected in the cause list. However, having regard to the nature of the

order proposed to be passed, we are of the considered opinion that no

prejudice will be caused to the State.

This appeal is presented against an interim order dated 21.01.2021

passed in W.P.No.20836 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though she had

entered appearance and had filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent

No.9 in the writ petition (appellant herein), due to technical glitches, there

was a connectivity problem, as a result of which she could not address her

arguments on the date when the order under challenge was passed and on

the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the writ

petitioner, the interim order came to be passed. She also submits that

interim order was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent-writ petitioner, submits that he would have no objection if the

appellant is permitted to file an application in the writ petition seeking

vacation/modification of the interim order so passed.

In view of the above, we do not feel inclined to entertain this writ

appeal.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the

appellant to file an application for vacation/modification of the order passed

by the learned single Judge. In the event of filing of such application,

needless to say, the same shall be considered, after hearing the learned

counsel for the parties.

No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

IBL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.128 of 2021

(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 17.03.2021

IBL