Skip to content


Lalmohan Srivastava Vs. Ravi Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Bakaram, Hyderabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal No. 52 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1982AP295
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantLalmohan Srivastava
RespondentRavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Bakaram, Hyderabad
Appellant AdvocateB.G. Paropkari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateUpendralal Waghray, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - letters patent appeal - section 115 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - letters patent appeal (lpa) preferred against interlocutory order in revision petition - such appeal not maintainable as clause 15 of letters patent prohibits a lpa being preferred against order made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. - - c clause 15 of the letter patent clearly prohibits a letters patent jurisdiction appeal being preferred against an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.ramachandra rao, j.1. this letters patent appeal is sought to be preferred against an interlocutory order in a revision petition filed under s. 115, c.p.c clause 15 of the letter patent clearly prohibits a letters patent jurisdiction appeal being preferred against an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. it follows that, when a letter patent appeal is not maintainable against any order in the revision petition itself, no appeal lies under clause 15 of the letters patent against any interlocutory order in a revision petition. an interlocutory order made in a revision petition may with in the meaning of clause 15; but, inasmuch as the said order is made in exercise of the revision al jurisdiction, no letters patent appeal lies under clause 15 of the letters patent.2. sri.....
Judgment:

Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is sought to be preferred against an interlocutory order in a revision petition filed under S. 115, C.P.C Clause 15 of the Letter Patent clearly prohibits a Letters Patent jurisdiction Appeal being preferred against an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. IT follows that, when a Letter Patent Appeal is not maintainable against any order in the revision petition itself, no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against any interlocutory order in a revision petition. AN interlocutory order made in a revision petition may with in the meaning of Clause 15; but, inasmuch as the said order is made in exercise of the revision al jurisdiction, no Letters Patent Appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Sri B.G. Paropkari, the learned counsel for the appellant, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben, AIR 1981 SC 1786; but we do not find anything in that decision in support of the contention of the learned counsel. The Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and the memorandum of appeal is rejected.

Appeal dismissed.


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