THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.M.P.NO. 1326 OF 2011 AND A.S. NO. 719 OF 2010 DT.11.7.2011 Between: Surapaneni Rama Rao … Petitioner And Atluri Purnachandra Rao and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B Nalin Kumar Counsel for respondents 2,3 and 5 : Sri K Durga Prasad Counsel for respondents 1 and 5 : None The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.M.P.NO. 1326 OF 2011 AND A.S. NO. 719 OF 2010 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri V Eswaraiah,J) The appellant herein is plaintiff. The present appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2010 in O.S. No. 8 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Guntur dismissing the suit for partition of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and allotment of one share to the plaintiff with separate possession and for rendition of accounts of 5th defendant firm. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed a petition in ASMP NO. 1326 of 2011 to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to prosecute the same against respondents 1 and 4 by initiating separate proceedings in so far as his claim against them is concerned. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it is stated that plaintiff/appellant with the intervention of elders has compromised the matter with Sri Atluri Srinivas and Sri Namburu Ravindra Kumar/ second and third respondents herein and filed a deed of compromise in original dated 4.7.2011. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has settled the matter insofar as respondents 2,3 and 5 are concerned out side the Court in terms of the deed of compromise dated 4.7.2011 and seeks permission to withdraw the appeal against said respondents with liberty to prosecute respondents 1 and 4 by initiating separate proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2,3 and 5 submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn in terms of deed of compromise entered between the parties on 4.7.2011. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents 2,3 and 5. It is seen from the record that notices on respondents 1 and 4 are not yet served. Since notices are not served on respondents 1 and 4 and there is no representation on their behalf, we are not inclined to grant the liberty sought for by the appellant to prosecute them by initiating separate proceedings. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant on obtaining instructions from the appellant submitted that appellant wants to withdraw the appeal itself as against all the respondents and prayed that the Registry may be directed to return the original deed of compromise filed along with ASMP No. 1326 of 2011. Recording the statement of the learned counsel for appellant, the appeal itself is dismissed as withdrawn against all the respondents. Having regard to dismissal of the appeal as against all the respondents, no orders are required to be passed in ASMP No. 1326 of 2011 and accordingly the same is closed. The Registry is directed to return the original deed of compromise filed along with ASMP No. 1326 of 2011 to the appellant /petitioner. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J __________________ B CHANDRA KUMAR,J DATE: 11.7.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.M.P.NO. 1326 OF 2011 AND A.S. NO. 719 OF 2010 DT.11.7.2011