Sri Ajerla Vijaya Simha Raju vs Smt. Jayanthi Kanaka Sundara
2024 Latest Caselaw 7484 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sri Ajerla Vijaya Simha Raju vs Smt. Jayanthi Kanaka Sundara on 21 August, 2024

 APHC010036742004
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                              [3369]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

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

                                    PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       SECOND APPEAL NO: 715/2004

Between:

Sri Ajerla Vijaya Simha Raju                                       ...APPELLANT

                                       AND

Smt Jayanthi Kanaka Sundara                                      ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K S MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. K SUBRAHMANYAM

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 09.02.2004,, in A. A.S.No.21 of 2003 on the file of District Judge, Vizianagaram,, (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the decree and Judgment dated 03.01.2003, in O.S O.S.No.228 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. In the trial Court, Respondent Respondent/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.228 of 1998 for recovery of Rs.34,400/- being the balance of principal and interest from the Defendant based on the promissory note dt.09.04.1995.

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. The proceeding sheets indicates that as the learned counsel for the Appellant is no more, this Court ordered the notice for the sole Appellant.

However, the notice was returned un-served due to an incorrect address, though it was sent to the address listed in the Appeal. It is the Appellant's responsibility to provide the Court with an accurate address. Consequently, despite the Court's best efforts, the notice could not be served.

5. Although the matter was explicitly listed under the caption 'for dismissal', no representation was forthcoming on behalf of the Appellant. This absence strongly indicates a lack of intent or interest on his part to further proceed with the Appeal.

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

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

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 21.08.2024 SAK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 21.08.2024

SAK