Tippireddy Ramu vs Challa Sreenivasulu Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 10244 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Tippireddy Ramu vs Challa Sreenivasulu Reddy on 13 November, 2024

 APHC010161582007
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                           [3369]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                     PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                         SECOND APPEAL NO: 635/2007

Between:

Tippireddy Ramu                                                    ...APPELLANT

                                        AND

Challa Sreenivasulu Reddy                                        ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. S SRINIVASA SHARMA

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

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 03.08.2006,, in A.S.No. A.S.No.25 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore, (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the decree and Judgment dated 16.11.2004, 16.11.2004 in O.S.No.174 of 2001 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. In the trial Court, Respondent Respondent/Respondent is the Plaintiff, ntiff, who filed the

2001, for recovery of Rs.2,69,022/- with interest and costs based on the suit promissory note dt.21.08.1998 dt.21.08.199 and to pass preliminary decree.

3. In the morning session, when the matter was called for hearing, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent were represented. As a result of their 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: 13.11.2024 SAK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 13.11.2024

SAK