Skip to content

Vellanki Venkatarama Rao Vs. Venkatasubbamma Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in(1898)8MLJ276
AppellantVellanki Venkatarama Rao
RespondentVenkatasubbamma Rao and anr.
- .....and to pass orders accordingly. 4. the costs of this appeal are left to be dealt with by the subordinate judge......

1. It is objected that no appeal lies because orders under Section 583 of the Civil Procedure Code are not mentioned in Section 588 of the Code. But Section 583 gives no right which a successful party did not otherwise possess. It only regulates the exercise of his right of having the state of things, as it stood before the erroneous decree was passed, restored.

2. I think an appeal lies against the order as against any order passed in execution. The order of the Subordinate Judge is quite unworkable and cannot stand. In order to replace the present appellant the Judge must determine what the nature and extent of that appellant's prior possession was, and, in that sense, he must decide the question between the two defendants.

3. I must reverse the order and direct the Subordinate Judge to find whether the appellant was in possession of any, or what part of, the two-third's share and, if so, whether solely or jointly with the other defendant and to pass orders accordingly.

4. The costs of this appeal are left to be dealt with by the Subordinate Judge.

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