Skip to content


Srimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda Sivarama Prasad Bahadur Zamindar Garu and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Represented by the Collector, Krishna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.R. No. 22704 and 13166
Judge
Reported inAIR1960AP364
ActsConstitution of India - Article 260; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 151; Andhra State Act, 1953 - Sections 32 and 55; ;Andhra Pradesh Appellate Side Rules - Rule 51
AppellantSrimanthu Rajah Yarlagadda Sivarama Prasad Bahadur Zamindar Garu and ors.
RespondentState of Andhra Represented by the Collector, Krishna and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB. Manavalachoudary and ;T. Veerabhadrayya, Advs.
Respondent Advocate3rd Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
.....andhra state act, 1953, rule 51 of andhra pradesh appellate side rules and high court orders and rules - appeal preferred against order of single judge exercising jurisdiction under article 226 - question of limitation period was raised - appellant relied on rule 51 - court exercising original jurisdiction under article 226 - rule 51 not applicable to appeal from order of high court passed in exercise of original jurisdiction - section 151 of limitation act attracts - held, limitation period to be decided taking into account provisions of section 151 of limitation act and sections 32 and 55 of andhra state act. - maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since..........j.1. these two references raise the question as to the period of limitation that should govern the writ appeals.2. appeals against the orders of a single judge passed in petitions under article 226 of the constitution of india were sought to be filed after twenty days from the date of judgment or order. the office raised an objection that they could not be entertained, unless the delay in filing them was excused. the advocates represented the appeals with the endorsement that it was not necessary that the writ appeals should be presented within twenty days. hence the reference.it is contended before us by sri manavala choudary and sri veerabhadrayya that article 151 of the indian limitation act, which prescribes a period of 20 days would not come into play in regard to writ appeals.....
Judgment:

Chandra Reddy, C. J.

1. These two references raise the question as to the period of limitation that should govern the writ appeals.

2. Appeals against the orders of a single Judge passed in petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were sought to be filed after twenty days from the date of judgment or order. The office raised an objection that they could not be entertained, unless the delay in filing them was excused. The advocates represented the appeals with the endorsement that it was not necessary that the writ appeals should be presented within twenty days. Hence the reference.

It is contended before us by Sri Manavala Choudary and Sri Veerabhadrayya that Article 151 of the Indian Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 20 days would not come into play in regard to Writ Appeals because they are applicable only to decrees or orders of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras, Bombay or of the High Court of East Punjab and since the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not within the purview of that Article, the limitation laid down in that Article is not attracted to writ appeals filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

We are unable to accede to this theory. It is true that there is no mention of the Andhra High Court in that Article and in the nature of things, there could be no reference, for the reason that the Andhra High Court was formed long after. Be that as it may, Section 32 of the Andhra State Act (Act XXX of 1953) has made the law in force in regard to practice and procedure in the High Court of Madras immediately before the creation of the Andhra High Court applicable mutatis mutandis to the High Court of Andhra. Section 55 of the Andhra State Act reads :

'Notwithstanding that no provision or insufficient provision has been made under Section 54 for the adaptation of a law made before the appointed day, any Court, tribunal or authority required or em-powered to enforce such law may, for the purpose of facilitating its application in relation to the State of Andhra, Madras, or Mysore, construe the law with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adopt it to the matter be-fore the Court, tribunal or authority, as the case may be.'

Thus, if there is any law bearing on practice and procedure obtaining in the Madras High Court, that is made applicable to the proceedings in the High Court of Andhra. The Law of Limitation is surely a procedural law and, consequently, it comes within the ambit of Section 32 of the Andhra State Act. It is argued by Shri Manavala Choudary that Section 32 would be relevant only in regard to procedure and practice that had originated from the rules framed by the Madras High Court.

We do not think that the language of section warrants such an interpretation. In fact, that section speaks of law with respect to practice and procedure and it could not be argued that the law of Limitation is not law. For these reasons, we hold that the writ appeals filed even in the Andhra High Court come within the scope of Article 151 of the Indian Limitation Act.

3. Another point that was sought to be made was that the period of limitation for filing writ appeals should be the same as that for the Letters Patent Appeals. This is founded on the rules framed by this Court for proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is Rule 14 that is emphasizedby counsel in both the petitions as supporting their contention that writ appeals could also be filed within 30 days. Rule 14 says :

'All other rules relating to appeals under the Letters Patent will apply to these appeals, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the foregoing rules.'

This rule should be understood in the context in which it occurs. Rule 10 requires the Memorandum of Appeal in a writ appeal against the order of a single Judge to be in the form prescribed for an appeal under the Letters Patent. It is, however, specifically stated there that it should be registered and numbered as a writ appeal. Rule 11 reads: 'Such memorandum shall be accompanied by--

(1) the fee prescribed therefor;

(2) proof of service of notice on all the parties who had appeared at the hearing of the petition;

(3) two typewritten copies of the order appealed against;

(4) two additional copies of the memorandum; and

(5) two copies of all other papers on which the appellant wants to rely.'

Under Rule 12 that appeal has to be posted before a Division Bench. Rule 13 dispenses with the printing of records. It is thus seen that these rules bear on the form of the appeal, and the annexures to accompany the memorandum of appeal as also the disposal of the appeals. There is no rule laying down any period of limitation in the rules framed by the High Court for that purpose.

4. Having regard to the terms of Rule 14, reliance is placed on Rule 51 (1) of the Appellate Side Rules which recites :

'An appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, other than an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed or made by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the judgment, decree or order appealed from, provided that the Court may in its discretion, on good cause shown, extend such period.'

We do not think that this rule lends any countenance to the proposition advanced for the appellants. That rule specifically excludes appeals from a judgment, decree or order made by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. That provides a period of limitation only in regard to appeals from the judgment of a single judge passed in appeals, as is made clear by sub-rule (3). Its application does not extend beyond Judgment of a single Judge on the appellate side.

So Rule 51 cannot be attracted to appeals against orders of a single Judge made on the original side of the High Court. Undoubtedly, a proceeding in a writ petition is a proceeding on the original side of the High Court. That being so, an order made by a single Judge of this Court in the exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an order made in the exercise of original jurisdiction. As such, it falls under Article 151 of the Indian Limitation Act and not under Rule 51 of the Appellate Side Rules.

5. Finally, our conclusion is that all appeals against the judgments of a single Judge on petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, should bo brought within twenty days as prescribed by Article 151 of the Indian Limitation Act read with Sections 32 and 55 of the Andhra State Act.


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