Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/1169/2009 of DANDAMUDI SIVA JAGANMOHINI Vs DANDAMUDI KRISHNA & 2 OTHERS on 2 March 2026
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: 1169/2009 Between: 1.
APHC010412262009
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: 1169/2009
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. DANDAMUDI SIVA JAGANMOHINI, W/O. LATE TRIVIKRAMA RAO R/O. TENNERU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT AND
1. DANDAMUDI KRISHNA 2 OTHERS, S/O. DASARADHA RAMAIAH R/O. TENNERU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. DANDAMUDI VENKATA RAMESH CHANDRA CHOUDARI, S/O. KRISHNA R/O. YAGANTI WING APARTMENTS, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. M/S TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DUGGEMPUDI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. MARREDDY BUSINESS R/O. H.NO. 4-23-66/7, 4TH LINE, MUTHYAREDDY NAGAR, KORETIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant:
1. G KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P VIJAYA KIRAN
2. RAMA RAO GHANTA The Court made the following:
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1169/2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant in O.S.No.382 of 2009.
2. In the above suit, I.A.No.863 of 2009 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C for the grant of temporary injunction, was dismissed on 31.08.2009. The suit is of the year 2009.
3. Ms.B.Swathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel, submits that the parties are not in touch with the appellant’s counsel and that she has no instructions in the matter.
4. As the matter has not been argued and in view of the aforesaid submission, as also the nature of the proceedings involved, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
5. 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. 1169 OF 2009 DATE: 03.03.2026
Pab