LATE v. KANDREGULA PARVATHI ALIAS DADI PARVATHI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 69/2008 FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 69/2008 Between: LATE LATE GOPALAKRISHNA, GOPALAKRISHNA, KANDREGULA 1. KANDREGULA LATE GOPALAKRISHNA, KANDREGULA SATYANARAYANA, EMPLOYEE IN TELECOM DEPARTMENT, SATYANARAYANA, EMPLOYEE IN TELECOM DEPARTMENT, SATYANARAYANA, EMPLOYEE IN TELECOM DEPARTMENT, R/O. GAVARAPALEM, ANANKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. GAVARAPALEM, ANANKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM R/O. GAVARAPALEM, ANANKAPALLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. S/O. S/O. S/O. ...APPELLANT
APPELLANT
AND KANDREGULA PARVATHI ALIAS DADI PARVATHI, W/o. 1. KANDREGULA PARVATHI ALIAS DADI PARVATHI, W/o. KANDREGULA PARVATHI ALIAS DADI PARVATHI, W/o. Gopalakrishhna, C/o. D. Krishna Murthy, R/o. Plot No. 54, Gopalakrishhna, C/o. D. Krishna Murthy, R/o. Plot No. 54, Gopalakrishhna, C/o. D. Krishna Murthy, R/o. Plot No. 54, Madhura Nagar, ...RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
Appeal under section________ against orders Appeal under section________ against orders IA NO: 1 OF 2005(FCAMP 325 OF 2005 IA NO: 1 OF 2005(FCAMP 325 OF 2005 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone 31 days of delay in presenting Family Court be pleased condone 31 days of delay in presenting Family Court be pleased condone 31 days of delay in presenting Family Court Appeal against the Decree and order in OP.no.295 of 2001 on the file Appeal against the Decree and order in OP.no.295 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, of the Family Court cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, of the Family Court cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam dated 8-12-04 Visakhapatnam dated 8 2 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. - Counsel for the Respondent:
1. V S R ANJANEYALU The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 69/2008
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present Family Court Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in O.P. No. 295 of 2001.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
A perusal of the docket order dated 04.05.2020 discloses that Registry had sent notice to the appellant and the same was returned with an endorsement that the appellant had ‘died’. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication.
Operative part
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
16.06.2026 TJN __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH ___________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 4 193 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 69/2008 TJN
16.06.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jun 2026. The bench was D RAMESH, BALAJI MEDAMALLI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.