##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:8670

APHC011396242008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3328]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

I.A.No.1 of 2008 (C.R.P.M.P.No.4808 of 2008)

In/And

CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) NO: 14245 of 2008

Between:

1. M. NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. SUBBAREDDY,

HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O SANKARAPURAM,

KADAPA DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1. M SAVITHRAMMA,

W/O NARASIMHA REDDY, MAJOR,

HOUSE WIFE, R/O KOILAKUNTA VILLAGE

AND MANDAL,

KURNOOL DISTRICT, -

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. J SESHAGIRI RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

2

2026:APHC:8670

3

2026:APHC:8670

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Sheri Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J.

Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2008 (C.R.P.M.P.No.4808 of 2008) is filed seeking

condonation of delay of 126 days in filing the present C.R.P.

3. The present C.R.P, which is still in the ‘S.R’ stage, is filed assailing the

Docket Order dated 18.01.2008 in I.A.No.1538/2007 in I.A.No.770/2006 in

A.S.No.92/2002.

4. The record in the present C.R.P. would disclose that except the grounds

nothing else with regard to the facts is mentioned in the present C.R.P. The

impugned Order is also a hand written Docket Order dated 18.01.2008 passed

in I.A.No.1538/2007 in I.A.No.770/2006 in A.S.No.92/2002. The record does

not disclose neither the nature of the Suit Proceedings nor as to what

happened in the Suit that led to filing of the Appeal Suit No.92/2002. The

Cause-title mentioned in the C.R.P. does not even indicate the status of the

Revision Petitioner herein in the Suit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who

is also appearing online, is also unable to make any submission with regard to

the facts of this case.

5. The docket in the present C.R.P. would disclose that firstly this Court

had issued Notice, returnable in four weeks vide Order dated 29.08.2008 in

C.M.P.No.4808/2008, which is filed for condonation of delay of 126 days.

Thereafter, on 30.01.2012, the Revision Petitioner was once again permitted

to take out Personal Notice since the Notice issued on 29.08.2008 has not

been returned and therefore, it was unclear whether the Notice has been

served on the Respondent or not. On 12.03.2012, this Court had noted that

the Personal Notice sent to the Respondent returned unserved with an

endorsement “address is incomplete”. Noting the same, this Court had

granted an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to send the

Notice to the complete and correct address of the Respondent.

4

2026:APHC:8670

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the

Notice sent to the Respondent was again returned unserved. It transpires

from the docket that despite return for the second time, the Revision Petitioner

has not taken any steps to serve the Notice in the C.M.P.No.4808 of 2008 for

condonation of delay by filing an Application for effecting service through

substituted service. In view of the fact that the case bundle in the present

C.R.P does not disclose even the basic facts as regards the nature of dispute

between the parties and the outcome in the Suit and also the failure on the

part of the Revision Petitioner in taking steps for effecting service on the

Respondent even after service got returned on two occasions, this Court is of

the view that Petitioner has grossly failed to prosecute the present C.R.P.

7. Having noted the same, I.A.No.1 of 2008 (C.R.P.M.P.No.4808 of 2008)

is dismissed for Non-prosecution. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition

bearing C.R.P(SR).No.14245 of 2008 is also dismissed for Non-prosecution.

No order as to costs.

8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Dt:05.02.2026

Vns