PILLALA MARRI VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. SAJARJEET KESARIMAL FIRM
LAWS(APH)-1963-1-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 11,1963

PILLALA MARRI VENKATARAMAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
SAJARJEET KESARIMAL FIRM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the lower Court was justified in directing the judgment-debtor (petitioner) to furnish security for the sale warrant amount after the petition, E.A. No. 742 of 1960 was admitted.
(2.) The contention of the judgment-debtor is that, E.A. No. 742 of 1960 filed under Order 21, rule 90 and section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was numbered, notice to respondent was ordered returnable by 10th December, 1960 and that notice served and his advocate appeared on 10th December, 1960 and argued that the security should be demanded. These facts were sworn to in an affidavit by the counsel for the judgment-debtor and no counter-affidavit was filed. The learned Subordinate Judge, evidently realising that he could not pass such an order under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code after admitting the petition and ordering notice, passed the order in question even without referring to the fact that the counsel for the respondent appeared on that date and argued. Aggrieved by the order directing the petitioner to furnish security, the judgment-debtor filed this appeal.
(3.) Sri A.V. Krishna Rao raised a preliminary objection to the effect that an appeal lies under Order 43, rule 1(j), Civil Procedure Code, only against an order under rule 92 of Order 21, setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. In the instant case, the Court simply directed the judgment-debtor to furnish security but no order was passed on the application dismissing it because of non-compliance with that direction, and hence the appeal is incompetent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.