Skip to content


B. Chinna Narasimhulu Vs. Iragam Setti Pullaiah and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberL.P. No. 17 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978AP159
ActsAndhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 - Sections 32 and 92
AppellantB. Chinna Narasimhulu
Respondentiragam Setti Pullaiah and anr.
Excerpt:
constitution - jurisdiction of vacation court - sections 32 and 92 of andhra pradesh civil courts act, 1972 - vacation court has jurisdiction to withdraw any proceeding pending in any court in district - not necessary to withdraw suit also while withdrawing interlocutory application. - .....with this view. section 32 (2) (5) is clear and states that the jurisdiction of the vacation civil judge extends to all suits, appeals and other proceedings pending in or cognizable by any court (whether a district court, a court of subordinate judge, or a court of a district munsif) in the district concerned, when such court is adjourned for summer vacation. having regard to the wide language used in this section, we are of the view that the vacation civil judge was justified in withdrawing the interlocutory application and passing orders thereon.2. sri r. subba rao, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that even in such a case the vacation civil judge cannot withdraw merely the interlocutory application without withdrawing the suit itself. as s. 32 authorises him to.....
Judgment:

Alladi Kuppuswami, J.

1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of our learned brother Muktadar, J. dismissing the appeal against an Order vacating the interim injunction granted in I. A. No. 167 of 1976 in O. S. No. 50 of 1976. In this application interim injunction was originally granted b y the Subordinate Judge. When the Court was closed for summer vacation the interim injunction. In the C.M.A. preferred against that order it was contended that the vacation Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw a case from another Court and dispose of the same. This contention was negatived by Justice Muktadar, who held that on a proper construction of s. 32 (2) (a0 and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act. 1972 the vacation Court has jurisdiction to withdraw any proceeding pending in any Court in the district. We are in agreement with this view. Section 32 (2) (5) is clear and states that the jurisdiction of the vacation Civil Judge extends to all suits, appeals and other proceedings pending in or cognizable by any Court (whether a District Court, a Court of Subordinate Judge, or a Court of a District Munsif) in the District concerned, when such Court is adjourned for summer vacation. Having regard to the wide language used in this Section, we are of the view that the vacation Civil Judge was justified in withdrawing the interlocutory application and passing orders thereon.

2. Sri R. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even in such a case the vacation Civil Judge cannot withdraw merely the interlocutory application without withdrawing the suit itself. As S. 32 authorises him to withdraw any proceedings, we do not think, it is necessary on the part of the vacation Civil Judge to withdraw the suit also. We find no merits, and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

3. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //