l0I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA FTRST APPEAL NO: 2001 OF 2002 Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 22-04- 2002 made in O.S.No.75 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Between: Guduru Anji Reddy, S/o.Veera Reddy, aged about 64 years, R/o.Nagaram Village, Keesara lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Smt. Rudraraju Venkata Subbamma, W/o.Raghuram Krishna Raju, Aged about 52 years, occ: House Hold, Rlio.H.No.15/A, Vengalraonagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Counsel for the Appellants : SRI P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent : SRI R.NARASIMHA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER ! THE ION'BLE JUSTICE SMT P.SREE SiIIDIIIA APPEAL SUIT No.2OOl OF 20a2 JUDGMEN1: This r 22.O4.itOO2 learned II A Reddy Distr 2. 'I'he respon<lent 3. Earlier i.e. on 21. learned cou. instrucr-ion s matter. Rec dismissed Ib 4 . Be tl-ra ulde A.S.M. judgment d ordered the r ppeal is directed against the judernerLt dated passed in O.S.No.75 of 1995 orL trr:. file of the iclitional Senior Civil Judge, L.t}.lta gar, Ranga ct. .ppe1lant herein is the del'endarLl and the s the plaintiff in the suit. this appeal was dismissed for ncn -pros,ecution 1.2005. When the matter is tzrlle,n rp, the sel for the appellant submittr:d th r1. he has no from his client to proceecl lurttrer in the >rding the above submission, the appeal is ' r-ron-prosecution. as it may, the appellalt filed an i,Lppiication '.No.1O5B of 20O6 seeking ro set aside the ted 24.1 1.2005. This Courr. cn 15.C6.2006 pplication and the suit is restort:cl t<. fi1:. 1 I t 5. It is seen from the docket that the appeal is listed on 12.O4.2OO2, 29.06.2022 and L3'|O'2O22' The learned counsel for the appellant sought time to take instructions from his client and ordered to tist the matter on t4.tL.2022. 6. Today when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no instructions from his client and accordingly he made an endorsement in the E.B 'as not Pressed'. 7 . In the light of the above discussion and for the reason that the learned counsel for the appellant has made an endorsement as not pressed, this Court has no objection except to dismiss the appeal. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.B.SAWAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. (With records if any) 2. One CC to SRI P.Venugopal, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI R.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. BSK il HIGH COIJRT DATED:1V111i2022 ORDER AS.No.2001 of 2002 DISMISSING 'I'HE A.S WITHOUT CC STS l' I 6 t4y;lii?3 e \qIz qrl n