KUNAPARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. KUNAPARAJU RAMA RAJU
LAWS(APH)-1963-10-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 30,1963

KUNAPARAJU SATYANARAYANA RAJU Appellant
VERSUS
KUNAPARAJU RAMA RAJU Respondents

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.;


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