Andhra Pradesh High Court
CMA/1218/2012 of P.SANKAR Vs THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS AND ANOTHERS on 19 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 3459 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1218 OF 2012 Between: P. Sankar, S/o.Late Sriramulu Naidu, Aged about
APHC010497002012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1218 OF 2012
Between:
P. Sankar, S/o.Late Sriramulu Naidu,
Aged about 48 Years,
R/o.Champagalla Street,
Srikakulam, Srikakulam District
---
Appellant
and
The Assistant Commissioner of
Endowments Department,
Srikakulam, Srikakulam District
and another
---
Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant
: Sri Aravala Rama Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Appeals Chinthapalli Srinivas
V.T.M. Prasad
The Court made the following:
JS,J
CMA No.1218/2012
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.
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal, is filed by the appellant/respondent, under Section 84(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act of 1987’), aggrieved by the Award, dated 02.04.2012, passed in O.A. No.3067 of 2010 (Old O.A. No.68 of 2003 of DC- Visakhapatnam) by the learned Chairman, A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. When the matter is listed today under the caption of ‘For Dismissal’, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Appeal, with a liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. However, if the appellant files Appeal within two (2) months from today, along with a copy of this judgment, the forum concerned will condone the delay, considering the fact that the present Appeal remained pending for nearly thirteen (13) years. Further, if the appellant files the Appeal, within the stipulated time, the forum concerned shall consider and dispose of the matter, on merits, within a period of six (6) months.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 20.11.2025 DSH
JS,J CMA No.1218/2012
Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent, and Sri Chinthapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent – Temple. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 84(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act of 1987’), is filed by the appellant challenging the Award, dated 02.04.2012, passed in O.A. No.3067 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has directed the appellant herein to vacate and handover the schedule premises within one (1) month from the date of service of the Ward.
2. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of 1st respondent, and Sri Chinthapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent – Temple.
3. During the course of hearing, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, requested this Court to dispose of the Appeal granting liberty to the appellant to pursue his remedies before the appropriate civil Court.
4. Recording the aforesaid submission, without going into merits of the case, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of granting liberty to the appellant to avail his remedies before the appropriate forum. No order as to costs.
5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.