BHOGANADHAM SESHAIAN Vs. BUDHI VEERABHADRAYYA DIED
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.