Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/1059/2014 of G.V.Rajendra Prasad Vs Kotha Venkateswarlu on 23 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [2281] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1059/2014 Between: 1. G.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O (LATE) POTHURAJU AGED ABOUT 60
APHC010040492014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1059/2014
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. G.V.RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O (LATE) POTHURAJU AGED ABOUT
YEARS OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O FLAT NO: 405, PARK RESIDENCEY, SAJJAPURAM,TANUKU W.G.DIST.
...PETITIONER AND
1. KOTHA VENKATESWARLU, S/O KUTUMBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, PASUPATHI NAGAR, TADEPALLIGUDEM W.G. DIST
2. KALIGINEEDI MANGA RAJU, S/O VENKATRA RAO, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, D-NO:5-14, BODASAKURRU, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, E.G.DT.,
3. KALIGINEEDI SATYA NARAYANA, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, D-NO:4-30, VUYYURIVARIMERAKA, ANTERVEDI SIVARU, SAKINETIPALLI MANDAL, E.G.DT.
4. SUNKARA NARASANNA, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, DR-NO:4-420, VUYYURIVARIMERAKA, ANTERVEDI SIVARU, SAKINETIPALLI MANDAL, E.G.DT.
...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V V S S KAMESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. The Court made the following ORDER :
The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 10.02.2014 passed in C.R.P.No.397 of 2014.
2. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘likely to be declared as infructuous’, there is no representation for the petitioner.
3. However, the Registry has placed on record, the order passed in C.R.P.No.397 of 2014, whereby the main civil revision petition itself was dismissed as infructuous. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication.
4. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 24.03.2026 Dvs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1059/2014 Dt: 24.03.2026 Dvs