Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1538/2016 of GONDELA DHANALAKSHMI, KRISHNA DIST Vs GONDELA SURI, KRISHNA DIST & ANR on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1538/2016 Between: 1. GONDELA DHANALAKSHMI, KRISHNA DIST, W/O. GONDELA SURI,
APHC010130902016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1538/2016
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. GONDELA DHANALAKSHMI, KRISHNA DIST, W/O. GONDELA SURI, AGED 38 YEARS R/O. LBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER AND
1. GONDELA SURI KRISHNA DIST ANR, S/O. PYDITHALLI AGED 44 YEARS, JPA IN VTPS, R/O. Q NO. G-287, B COLONY, VTPS LBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT
2. MANGALAMPUDI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. JAMALAIAH, AGED
YEARS, R/O. OPP. ROYAL BRILLIANTS CONVENT LBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 05.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.329 of 2015 in O.P.No.500 of 2009 on the file of learned Family Court – cum – IV Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada, in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 509 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed in O.P.No.500 of 2009 dated 09.07.2013.
2. On 19.02.2026, there was no representation on either side and the matter is directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’.
3. Today also, there is no representation on either side. It seems the petitioner is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the case.
4. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 06.03.2026. Dvs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1538/2016 Dt: 06.03.2026 Dvs