ANISETTI BHAGYAVATHI Vs. ANDALURI SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1992-2-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 03,1992

ANISETTI BHAGYAVATHI Appellant
VERSUS
ANDALURI SATYANARAYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIATHINATHA V. KUPPA [REFERRED TO]
PARAMASIVUDU V. SUBBANNA [REFERRED TO]
BALAI CHANDRA HAZRA VS. SHEWDHARI JADAV [REFERRED TO]
CHUDASMA JASUBHAI MANUBHA VS. CHUDASMA RAISINH BAPUBHA [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES VS. NAGENDRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
P V SUBBA RAJA VS. S S NARAYANA RAJA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

CHAPALA CHINNABBAYI VS. NARALASETTI ANUSAUYAMA [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBIAH VS. ESTHER PONNAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2001-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA SHANKAR AND PREM SHANKAR VS. JAGDISH LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2001-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT VS. VIJAYA KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-1994-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
N. NATARAJAN VS. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-264] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - (1.)This review C.M.P. is referred to a Division Bench by Neeladri Rao, J. observing that maintainability of the review petition depends on the question whether additional evidence can be permitted at the stage of second appeal. The learned Judge noticed that on the question whether additional evidence can be admitted at the stage of second appeal the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Venku Reddi v. Pichi Reddi, AIR 1956 Andh Pra 250 is in conflict with the judgment of the Madras High Court in Subba Raja v. Narayana Raja, AIR 1954 Mad 1074 which was delivered prior to 5-7-1954.
(2.)The second appeal arose out of the suit filed for possession of plaint schedule premises. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The second appeal by the 1st defendant was dismissed. Thereafter the review petition was filed by the 1st defendant on the ground that she discovered a new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within her knowledge and so it could not be produced by her at the time the decree was passed in the second appeal.
(3.)Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, the learned counsel for the review-petitioner, submits that O. 42, R. 1, C.P.C. makes the provisions of 0.41, C.P.C. applicable to second appeals, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence which is a discovery of a new and important fact and this is also one of the grounds for seeking review.
;


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