Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3932/2007 of The Executive officer, Group Temples, Vs Sri Sakhiya Matt, Rep. by Byragi Tulasibai, on 7 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3932/2007 Between: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GROUP TEMPLES,, SRIKAKULAM,
APHC010268152007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3932/2007
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GROUP TEMPLES,, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. SRI SAKHIYA MATT REP BY BYRAGI TULASIBAI, W/O. LATE SAHADEV DAS BHAVAJI, MAHANTHI SAKHIYA MATTA, R/O. CHINNABONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, NEAR KRSIHNA PARK, PALAKONDA ROAD,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. BYRAGI RAMESWARI BAI, W/O. LATE NARASIMHA DAS BYRAGI MAHANTHI SAKHIYA MATTA, R/O. CHINNABONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO
2. K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR)
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER :
On 02.04.2026, there was no representation on either side and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
2. On 17.04.2026, when the matter was listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time.
3. Today, there is no representation on either side.
4. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 08.05.2026 Dvs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3932/2007 Dt: 08.05.2026 Dvs