Gummagatta Venkatamma vs Balija R.Aswarthappa
2024 Latest Caselaw 6831 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gummagatta Venkatamma vs Balija R.Aswarthappa on 7 August, 2024

 APHC010023812002
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                              [3369]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                 WEDNESDAY
                 WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                    PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       SECOND APPEAL NO: 986/2002

Between:

Gummagatta Venkatamma                                              ...APPELLANT

                                       AND

Balija R Aswarthappa                                            ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. A HANUMANTHA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. R N HEMENDRANATH REDDY

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment dated 20.07.2002,, in A.S.No.17 A. of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda,, (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') reversing the decree and Judgment dated 21.07.2000, in O.S.No.19 O.S of 1995 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda (for short, 'the trial Court').

Court')

2. In the trial Court, Appellant / Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 1995 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from digging pits in front of the house of the Plaintiff shown as A B C E in the plaint schedule rough sketch. The Respondent / Appellant is the Defendant in the said suit.

3. In the morning session, when the matter was called for hearing, no representation was made on behalf of the Appellant, despite the presence of learned counsel for the Respondent. In light of this absence, the matter was subsequently passed over until 2:15 PM.

4. In the afternoon session as well, there was no appearance on behalf of the Appellant. Despite the matter being specifically listed under the caption 'for dismissal', no representation was forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant. This consistent absence strongly indicates a lack of intent or interest on his part to further proceed with the Appeal.

5. Consequently, due to the persistent absence of the Appellant and his failure to appear, the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed for default. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

6. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal, shall stand closed.

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

Date: 07.08.2024 SAK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 07.08.2024

SAK