BHOGANADHAM SESHAIAN Vs. BUDHI VEERABHADRAYYA DIED
LAWS(APH)-1971-3-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 15,1971

BHOGANADHAM SESHAIAN Appellant
VERSUS
BUDHI VEERABHADRAYYA(DIED) Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VARADIAH V. RAJAKUMARA VENKATA PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMU SAHU V. THAKUR DAYAL RAI [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL SINGH V. RAJIRAM [REFERRED TO]
VEMURI PTICHAYYA V. RAJA YARLAGADDA ANKINEEDU [REFERRED TO]
ASAN KUTTI V. KOYAMAN KUTTI [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAMMAL V. CHIDAMBARA KOTHANAR [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NATH V. MOTI RAM [REFERRED TO]
NONIBAI V. JETHANAND [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN V. KRISHNARU [REFERRED TO]
L J LEACH AND CO LIMITED VS. JARDINE SKINNER AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL VS. KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL [REFERRED TO]
PENTAPATI CHINA VENKANNA VS. PENTAPATI BANGARARAJU [REFERRED TO]
A K GUPTA AND SONS LIMITED VS. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
A RAMA RAO VS. VENKATARAMANACHAR [REFERRED TO]
DOLAGOBINDA SAHU VS. CHAKRADHAR MOHAPATRA [REFERRED TO]
C T A CT NACHIAPPA CHETTIAR VS. M G RAMASWAMI PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
HANAMAPPA SHIDDAPPA VS. NINGAPPA RANGAPPA [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR SINGH VS. KAHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ALAPATI SYAMALADOSS VS. DORADLA SUBBAYYA [REFERRED TO]
JHORAMA VS. VISWASARAYI LATCHANNA DORA [REFERRED TO]
ADWAITA CHANDRA SAHA VS. CHITTAGONG CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
(BETHAPUDI) TANDAVAMURTI VS. (BETHAPUDI) DURGAMBA [REFERRED TO]
KUMARA VENKATA PERUMAL RAJAH BAHADUR VARU, MINOR RAJAH OFKARVETNAGAR, BY GUARDIAN MR W A VARADACHARIAR VS. VELAYUDA REDDI AND SARAVAPALLI SUBRAMANIA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
B BANDHU SINGH VS. KTBANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN DAS VS. AMIR KHAN [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF DACCA, LTD VS. GOUR GOPAL SAHA [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CAWNPORE [REFERRED TO]
RAJA SRI SHIVA PRASAD SINGH VS. LALIT KISHORE MITRA [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAJA D.K. VENKATA LINGAMA NAYANIM BAHADUR VARU (SINCE DECEASED) AND ANR. VS. RAJAH INUGANTI RAJAGOPALA VENKATA NARASIMHA RAYANIM BAHADUR VARU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
IPPAGUNTA LAKSHMINARASINGA RAO VS. IPPAGUNTA BALASUBRAMANYAM AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
ALLURI BANGAR RAJU AND ORS. VS. ALLURI RAJA KALIDINDI SURAIAHMMA BAHADUR AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAKASH SHARMA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2000-3-86] [REFERRED]
CONTAINER MOVEMENT BOMBAY TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CAPITAL CARGO AND CONTAINER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2000-3-3] [REFERRED]
HAZARI LAL KISHORI LAL VS. BABU LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1981-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
D NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU VS. T T DEVASTHANAMS [LAWS(APH)-1994-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS HYDERABAD VS. GEOFFREY MANNERS AND COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-1999-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
FGP LIMITED MUMBAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT III [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
M A RASHEED VS. T S MAHABOOB BASHA [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
GNANAMBAL VS. PERUMAL PILLAI [LAWS(MAD)-1991-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
SANKARA RAMESHWARAR DEVASTHANAM VS. PITCHAIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1999-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
RATNAKAR BANK LIMITED VS. USHA RAJARAM NIMBALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2013-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAIN MISHRA VS. D S BISHT AND SONS [LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
GORDHANBHAI KHODABHAI PATEL VS. RAJENDRAKUMAR NEMCHAND [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
A.P.S.R.T.C. REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER VS. P. RAMANAREDDI [LAWS(APH)-1988-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD THR ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATO VS. I D SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-412] [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NU BUILT FURNITURE PVT. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1985-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
SIKKIM TOBACCO LIMITED, EAST SIKKIM VS. GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED, GUJARAT [LAWS(SIK)-2017-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
N. RAMASWAMY VS. D. LAXMI BAI [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-3-165] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Erbote, J. - (1.)This Letters Patent Appeal has come to us on a reference made by our learned brothers Narasimham and Parthasarathi, JJ. The learned Judges thought that the main issue and the only question involved in the appeal is
"whether the amendment by including a new prayer, which was tantamount to a fresh execution petition. could be ordered after 12 years disregarding the provisions of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code."
They noticed that conflict of views exists in the Judgments of Jorama v. Latchanna Dora, AIR 1940 Mad 19 and Venkata Lingama Nayanim v. R. Venkata Narasima Rayanim, 1946-2 Mad LJ 383 = (AIR 1947 Mad 216). They consequently felt that the point involved being one of sufficient important and as the fate of the appeal depended in their view upon the answer to the said question, they referred the appeal for decision to the Full Bench.
(2.)The facts relevant for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised before us lie in a narrow compass and are to a large extent (not ?) disputed. The respondent obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 30 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Nellore against the appellants, judgment-debtors on 30-10-1950.
(3.)The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 160 of 1951 for execution of the said decree. By attachment and sale of a house property of the judgment debtors, the decree-holder realised Rs. 2946-4-0. The E. P. was dismissed recording part satisfaction of the decree.
;


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