HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.12 of 2006 DATED: 26.03.2010 Between: Kasaraneni Vijaya Kumari .. Appellant/Petitioner No.1 And Rayala Venkateswara Rao and 8 othres. .. Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.12 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- The appellant, along with one K.Venkata Subba Rao, filed suit in O.S.No.50 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli, against the respondents for declaration and in that suit, she filed I.A.No.331 of 2004 for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. In-turn, respondents 1 to 4 herein also have filed another I.A.No.99 of 2005 seeking injunction against the appellant and Venkata Subba Rao. The trial Court by orders dated 07-10-2005 dismissed I.A.No.331 of 2004 filed by the appellant and allowed I.A.No.99 of 2005 filed by the respondents 1 to 4. Challenging the orders passed I.A.No.331 of 2004 in O.S.No.50 of 2004, the appellant alone filed this appeal. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 19-02-2010, Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the suit itself was disposed of and therefore, the order impugned in this appeal did not survive for adjudication. Learned counsel Sri K.Jagadeeswar Rao, representing Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, sought time to verify. To enable the learned counsel for the appellant to verify, the matter was directed to be posted next week under the caption ‘for orders’. 3. When the matter was listed on 19-03-2010, none appeared, as such, the matter was again directed to be listed ‘for dismissal’ today. Today also none appeared on behalf of the appellant. 4. In the circumstances, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 26th March 2010 KVR