Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/680/2010 of MUNNANGI PAMULU Vs SMT. MUNNANGI MANIMALA on 19 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3481] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 680/2010 Between: 1.
APHC010129412010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 680/2010
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. MUNNANGI PAMULU, S/O. JAGANNADHAM, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PARISHAD MANDAL, KONAKANAMITLA PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PODILI JCJC.
...APPELLANT AND
1. SMT MUNNANGI MANIMALA, W/o. Pamulu, D/o. Chintalalankka Subbarao, R/o. Bodapadu Village, Amarthalauru Mandal, Guntur District,
...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against orders Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent:
1. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
On 03.03.2026, the following order was passed:
“Learned counsels for both the sides submit that the parties are not in touch with them since long. The appeal is being listed after long. The matter could not be settled before the Lok Adalat as well on account of absence of the parties.
2. The petition filed by the husband seeking divorce, was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
3. However, on the request of both the learned counsels, one opportunity is granted to obtain the instructions.”
2. Sri Dudiki Rohith, learned counsel representing Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not able to take instructions and it appears that the party is not interested in prosecuting the Appeal.
3. None appears for the respondent.
4. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 20.04.2026 MSI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 680/2010 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Dated: 20.04.2026 MSI