KUNAPARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. KUNAPARAJU RAMA RAJU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KUNAPARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU
KUNAPARAJU RAMA RAJU
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, C.J. -
(1.) The short question that requires an answer in these
appeals is whether an order converting a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal into a Civil
Revision Petition is a 'judgment' within the terms of clause (15) of the Letters Patent.
The facts necessary for the purpose of this enquiry may be briefly stated. The
appellant, a creditor, filed a petition under section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency
Act, impeaching a sale held by the Official Receiver in I.P.No. 10 of 1954. As it
was filed beyond 21 days prescribed by section 68 he also filed an I.A. under section
5 of the Indian Limitation Act read with section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency
Act, for condoning the delay in filing the petition. Both the petitions were dismissed
by the Subordinate Judge for reasons which need not be stated here. The
appellant sought to file an appeal against these orders. Here again, he did not file the
appeals in time and so once again he invoked section 5 of the Limitation Act read
with section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The District Judge thought that
there was sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act which
prevented the appellant from presenting the appeals in time.
(2.) These orders were made the subject of two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in
this Court. At the. time of hearing of the appeals, an objection was taken by the
appellant that the appeals were incompetent for the reason that they did not fall
within Schedule I of the Provincial Insolvency Act. When this plea prevailed
with the learned Judge, a request was made on behalf of the respondents for
permission to convert the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals into Civil Revision Petitions. The
request was granted and, ultimately, the Civil Revision Petitions were accepted by
Sanjeeva Row Nayudu, J. The present Letters Patent Appeals are filed against
the orders of the learned Judge.
(3.) The main point that arises for consideration is, whether the order directing
the conversion of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals into Civil Revision Petitions is
attracted by clause (15) of the Letters Patent. Incontestably, clause 15 does not
govern orders made by this Court in Civil Revision cases. So, the only question is
whether the order of conversion could be regarded as a ' judgment' within the scope
of clause 15 of the Letters Patent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.