Putta Kameswara Rao vs Putta Kantha Rao And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8289 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Putta Kameswara Rao vs Putta Kantha Rao And Others on 11 September, 2024

 APHC010361942003
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI                                [3369]
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                        PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                           SECOND APPEAL NO: 281/2003

Between:

Putta Kameswara Rao,                                                    ...APPELLANT

                                           AND

Putta Kantha Rao and Others                                       ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. N V ANANTHA KRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff Appellant/Plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment dated 31.10.2002, in A.S.No.173 173 of 1997 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, District (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') confirming the decree and Judgment dated 20.12.1996, in O.S.No.92 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Judge Court, Tadepalligudem (for short, 'the trial Court') Court').

2. In the trial Court, Appellant/Appellant Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 1987, for declaration that the Plaintiff has absolute title and possession of the plaint schedule property with consequential injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, followers, agents, representatives etc., from ever interfering with the Plaintiff's possession.

3. In the morning session, when the matter was called for hearing, neither the Appellant nor the Respondents 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: 11.09.2024 SAK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Date: 11.09.2024

SAK