S.Vignesam vs S.Kameshwara Rao
2024 Latest Caselaw 6832 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

S.Vignesam vs S.Kameshwara Rao on 7 August, 2024

 APHC010254262001
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                        [3369]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                   PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       SECOND APPEAL NO: 933/2001

Between:

S.vignesam                                                    ...APPELLANT

                                      AND

S Kameshwara Rao                                           ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. G HEMACHALAM

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. A RAVI SHANKAR

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Appellant/ Appellant/ Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 16.07.2001,, in A. A.S.No.74

1997) on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam,, (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the decree and Judgment dated 26.03.1997 1997, in O.S.No.92 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Pathapatnam (for short, 'the trial Court') Court').

2. In the trial Court, Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 1998 for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property as well as damages.

damages

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