IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.449 of 1999 BETWEEN Yertha Pratap Reddy and another. …APPELLANTS AND Kalikiri Ravindranatha Reddy and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR. S.V. BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: On 23.03.2011, giving liberty to the learned counsel for the appellants to get instructions, the following order was passed: “The defendants are appellants. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for relief of declaration and injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal of the plaintiffs succeeded. Hence, this second appeal by the defendants. Pending the second appeal the second respondent died and the first respondent, being her son, is already on record and a memo to that effect was filed. However, this appeal against the third respondent, who is one of the plaintiffs, was dismissed for default on 26.04.2006. The decree being joint among all the plaintiffs, in view of dismissal of this appeal against the third respondent, this entire appeal is affected inasmuch as the decree, granting the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the plaintiffs jointly, stands affirmed against the third respondent and the same cannot be varied so far as the rest of the respondents in this appeal are concerned. Prima facie, therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed against the other respondents as well. However, as the appellants counsel seeks time to get instructions, list ‘for judgment’ on 31.03.2011.” 2. Today the learned counsel states that the parties are not in contact and has no instructions. In view of the above, the second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution of the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 8, 2011 DSK