Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/699/2011 of P. SESHI REDDY, GUNTUR Vs N.G. NARAYANA SWAMY & ANOTHER on 2 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 699/2011
APHC010131402011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 699/2011
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. P. SESHI REDDY, GUNTUR, S/O VENKATA REDDY R/O D.NO. 3-28-18/85, 7TH LANE , BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR
...APPELLANT AND
1. N G NARAYANA SWAMY
ANOTHER, S/O LATE GANAPATHI FINANCIER R/O D.NO. X-26, NEW NO. 15, GROUND FLOOR 5TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI- 40 TAMIL NADU STATE
2. N G RAAJA, S/O N.G. NARAYANA SWAMY R/O D.NO. X-26, NEW NO. 15, GROUND FLOOR 5TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40 TAMIL NADU STATE
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant:
1. K G KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. The Court made the following:
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 699/2011
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 17.02.2026, the following order was passed: < The appeal is by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff’s plaint in a suit for recovery of the amount with interest was returned by the learned Trial Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and for presentation before the proper Court.
3. There is no interim order in the appeal.
4. Consequently, it appears that the plaintiff might have presented the plaint in the proper Court.
5. However, learned counsel for the appellant appears and prays for some time to obtain latest instructions.
6. Finally, list after two weeks.=
2. Ms. Y.Mahalaxmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel on record, submits that she has no instructions from the appellant and, consequently, she is not able to advance the arguments.
3. Considering the nature of the dispute, the afflux of time, and the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the
appellant, it appears that the appellant has lost interest in prosecuting the appeal.
4. The C.M.A. is dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
_____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J Date: 03.03.2026 Pab
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2011 DATE: 03.03.2026
Pab