Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/1003/2016 of VEMIREDDY CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, NELLORE DIST Vs VEMIREDDY SUREKA, NELLORE DIST on 16 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3572] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
APHC010133682016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1003/2016
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. VEMIREDDY CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, NELLORE DIST, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, KASIPURAM, VAKADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT AND
1. VEMIREDDY SUREKA NELLORE DIST, W/o. V. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Hindu, Kolagatla Village, Sangam Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:
1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent:
1. G JAGADEESWAR The Court made the following:
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2016 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) On 06.01.2026 and 03.02.2026, the following orders were passed: “06.01.2026: The Guardian O.P.No.480 of 2014 filed by the present appellant seeking custody of the minor was dismissed
2. The date of birth of the minor as mentioned in the order is 16.10.2008.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to obtain latest instructions.
4. Post after four (04) weeks. 03.02.2026: At the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, post after two weeks.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is present.
3. It is made clear that no further adjournments will be entertained.”
2. Today, there is no representation for the appellant.
3. Considering the last order dated 03.02.2026 that no further adjournment will be entertained and as there is no representation for
the appellant, though learned counsel for the respondent, is present, 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: 17.02.2026 Pab
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2016 DATE: 17.02.2026
Pab