Skip to content


Vadapalli Krishnamacharyulu and anr. Vs. Sidda Veeraraju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal of 1961 (S.R. No. 23545 of 1961)
Judge
Reported inAIR1964AP527
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 43, Rule 1
AppellantVadapalli Krishnamacharyulu and anr.
RespondentSidda Veeraraju and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Venkatapathiraju, Adv. for ;I.V. Narasimha Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP. Suryanarayana, Adv.
Excerpt:
civil - second appeal - clause 15 of letters patent (madras) and order 43 rule 1 (u) of code of civil procedure, 1908 - high court passed order allowing appeal against order of subordinate judge remanding suit to trial court for disposal - whether letters patent appeal could be filed against judgment of single judge of high court - nomenclature of appeal civil miscellaneous appeal - appeal to be considered as a second appeal as it was preferred against judgment of lower appellate court passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction - held, letter patent appeal not maintainable unless accompanied with permission of judge who has passed judgment. - .....urges that an appeal is competent for the reason that the impugned judgment was passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal and as such it falls within the purview of clause 15 of the utters patent and that it falls outside nagamma v. venkattasubbiah, (1959) 2 andh wr 554. we do not think that we can give effect to this contention. notwithstanding the fact that the appeal presented by the respondents was described as a civil miscellaneous appeal, it was a second appeal in that it was preferred against the judgment of the lower appellate court passed in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. consequently, despite the nomenclature of the appeal as a civil miscellaneous appeal, it does not cease to be a second appeal. hence, without the leave of the judge who has given the judgment.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. This raises the question whether a Letters Patent Appeal could be filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court allowing an appeal brought by the respondents against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, remanding a suit brought by the appellants to the trial Court for disposal on merits.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants urges that an appeal is competent for the reason that the impugned judgment was passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal and as such it falls within the purview of Clause 15 of the Utters Patent and that it falls outside Nagamma v. Venkattasubbiah, (1959) 2 Andh WR 554. We do not think that we can give effect to this contention. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal presented by the respondents was described as a civil miscellaneous appeal, it was a second appeal in that it was preferred against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court passed in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, despite the nomenclature of the appeal as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, it does not cease to be a second appeal. Hence, without the leave of the Judge who has given the judgment now impeached before us, a fetters patent appeal is not competent.

3. We, therefore, hold that the appeal as presented cannot be entertained. However, this does not preclude the appellants from filing a letters patent appeal, if they could validly obtain the leave of the Judge concerned.


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