/ H
♦ v
•• #
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1318 OF 2006
Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Decree and
Judgment dated 01-09-2006 passed in A.S.No. 62 of 2005 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Cuddapah reversing the Judgment and Decree
passed in O.S.No. 286 of 2001 dated 08-02-2005 on the file of the III
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah.
Between:
Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o.Alla Bakash, aged 54 years, Muslim
Registered Contractor R/o. at D.No.22/35 Trunk Road, Rayachoti Town,
Cuddapah District.
...Appellant/(Respondent/Plalntiff)
AND
1. The District Collector, Cuddapah, S/o Peda Veeraiah, R/o Jaladi
Village, Ediapadu Mandal, Guntur District.
Respondents
2. The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Cuddapah.
...Appellants(Defendants)
Counsel for the Appellant:SRI D RAGHAVA REDDY- No Representation
Counsel for the Respondents: —
The Court made the following:
1
APHC010116132006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1318/2006
Between:
Shaik Mahaboob Basha ...APPELLANT
AND
The District Collector Cuddapah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1.D RAGHAVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
f
H
(
1.
The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Respondent/
Plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment dated 01.09.2006, in A.S.No.62 of
St
2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa, (for short, ‘the 1
Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 08.02.2005, in
O.S.No.286 of 2001 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa (for
short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. In the trial Court, Appellant/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit
in O.S.No.286 of 2001, for recovery of Rs.84,400/-with future interest from the
date of filing the suit till its realization. Respondents/Appell ants are the
Defendants in the said suit.
2
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.
SD/- M. RAMESH BABU
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Cuddapah, YSR Kadapa
District (with
records if any)
2. The III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah,
YSR Kadapa District.
3. One CC to SRI. D. RAGHAVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at
Amaravati
5. Three C.D.Copies
nm
HIGH COURT
DATED:29/10/2024
NM
JUDGMENT:-
SA.No.1318 of 2006
0 6 FEB 2025
■3:
\o
V5- Currant Section
^^<«!Lf‘esPATCV't5**^
DISMISING THE SECOND APPEAL FOR
DEFAULT