Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3733/2012 of SHAIK KHASIM VALI & 3 OTHERS Vs THE MANAGING COMMITTEE JAMIA MASJID BATHAPALLI ANANTAPUR on 1 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3733/2012 Between: 1. SHAIK KHASIM VALI & 3 OTHERS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM,
APHC010333262012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3733/2012
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. SHAIK KHASIM VALI & 3 OTHERS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MUSLIM, R/O. TADIPATRI ROAD BATHAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
2. LAVANURU SHAIK SUBHAN,, S/O. ALIABUDDIN, MUSLIM, R/O. TADIPATRI ROAD BATHAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
3. SHAIK MUSTAFA,, S/O. FAKRUDDIN, MUSLIM, R/O. ANANTAPUR ROAD BATHAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. LADDU SULEMAN,, S/O. FAKRUDDIN, MUSLIM, R/O. VADDE VEEDHI BATHAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE JAMIA MASJID BATHAPALLI ANANTAPUR, Anantapur District rep., by its President Janab Sattar Sahab S/o. Madar Sahab aged about 59 years Occ: President of Jamia Mosque. R/o. Bathapalli (Village & Mandal) Anantapur District.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M MEHDI HUSSAIN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. ADNAN MAHMOOD
The Court made the following ORDER :
On 27.02.2026, there was no representation on either side and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
2. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on either side. It seems the parties have lost interest in prosecuting their case.
3. In view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 02.04.2026 Dvs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3733/2012 Dt: 02.04.2026 Dvs