Dr. Chintamaneni Suresh, v. Dr. Haranath Babu Rao Tipirneni,
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: RAVI NATH TILHARI,MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-03-18. Dr. Chintamaneni Suresh, v. Dr. Haranath Babu Rao Tipirneni,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
APHC010450212014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3524] (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 25/2014 Between: Dr. Chintamaneni Suresh, ... APPELLANT AND Dr Haranath Babu Rao Tipirneni ... RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V P SAI VIHARI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K V PAVAN KUMAR 2. B V BAKSHI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 25/2014 JUDGMENT: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) On 02. 07. 2024, the following order was passed: “Request has been made by Sri K. Jagadheeshwar, learned counsel Representing Sri T. V. P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the appellant, for adjournment. 2. The suit in O. S. No.
234 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount and was decreed with costs of Rs. 1,09,03,035/-together with interest thereon at 12% p. a. , from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p. a. , from the date of the decree till realization. 3. On 24. 12. 2024 the following order was passed : “The learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff states that half of the decretal amount deposited by the appellant was withdrawn, as per the earlier order dated 11. 7. 2023. He submits that the respondent is aged about 92 years and requests for early hearing. He also states that the paper books are made ready and the same would be filed into the Registry. Considering the submissions made, list the appeal under the caption "Final Hearing" on 07. 1. 2025. ” 4. On 18. 02. 2025 the following order was passed : “It is represented that Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned arguing counsel, had some personal inconvenience. At this request, list the matter on 25.
02. 2025. ” 5. Considering the aforesaid, as last opportunity, the matter is adjourned. 6. Post on 18. 03. 2025. No further adjournment shall be requested, as the matter pertains to the year 2014. ” 2. Sri A. Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri T. V. P. Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the appellant requests for adjournment on the ground that the matter will be argued by Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel. 3. Request for adjournment has been opposed by Sri K. V. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The matter pertains to the year 2014. 5. Inspite of granting opportunity to learned counsel appearing for the appellant to argue the matter, he did not advance the arguments. 6. In view of the above, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for “want of prosecution”. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J Dated: 18. 03. 2025 AG THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM APPEAL SUIT NO: 25/2014 Dated: 18. 03. 2025 AG
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.