KESAVARAPU VENKATESWARLU Vs. SREEDHARALA SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 20,1955

KESAVARAPU VENKATESWARLU Appellant
VERSUS
SREEDHARALA SATYANARAYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HOWARD V. BODLINGTON [REFERRED TO]
DANFORD V. MCNULTY [REFERRED TO]
GEBRUDER NAF V. PLOTON [REFERRED TO]
MATRA MONDAL V. HARI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASAMI V. KANAKASABHAI [REFERRED TO]
MIDHI LAL V. MAZHAR [REFERRED TO]
RATAN SEN V. SURAJ BHAU [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI MOHAN V. KUNJA BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF TRIVANDRUM V. M.MAPPILLAI [REFERRED TO]
MAMMEN MAPPILLAI V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF TRIVANDRUM [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MASTHAN SAHIB V. BALARAMI REDDI [REFERRED TO]
DAKOR TEMPLE COMMITTEE VS. SHANKERLAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhimasankaram, J. - (1.)This appeal does not exceed Rs. 7,500 in value. It is objected by Mr. B.V.Subrahmanyam, the learned advocate for the appellants, that the appeal not having been referred to a Bench by a single Judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules, cannot be heard by us. The question raised is one which is, in our opinion, of considerable importance. We may also note that several cases of this character have been disposed by Division Benches. We, therefore, desire to refer the following two questions to a Full Bench :
(1) Is a Bench of two Judges competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500 in value, when it is not referred to it by a single Judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules? (2) In any case, what is the effect of the hearing of such an appeal by a Bench without objection having been taken by the parties to such hearing ?
The appeal then came on for hearing before the Full Bench (Viswanatha Sastri, Bhimasankaram and Krishna Rao, JJ.) in pursuance of the above order of reference.
(2.)The following questions have been referred to us :- (1) Is a Bench of two Judges competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500 in value when it is not referred to it by a single Judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules ? (2) In any case, what is the effect of the hearing of such an appeal by a Bench without objection having been taken by the parties to such hearing ? The answer to these questions depends on the construction of Rules 1 and 2 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court which, so far as they are now relevant, run as follows :-
"Rule 1, (3) (c).-The following matters may be heard and determined by one Judge : Provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may, at any time, adjourn it for hearing and determination by a Bench of two Judges :- Every appealfrom an original decree when the value of such appeal does not exceed Rs. 7,500."

"Rule II (2) (a).-The following matters may be heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges ; Provided that if both Judges agree that the determination involves a question of law they may order that the matter, or the question of law, be referred to a Full Bench, Every appeal from the decree or order of a civil Court except those mentioned in Rule 1 :"

(3.)It was sought to be argued for the respondent that the Appellate Side Rules have been framed for administrative convenience and are in the nature of domestic rules regulating the internal management of the business of the High Court and should not be construed as if they were statutory provisions conferring or taking away jurisdiction. For the appellant it was argued that the appellate Side Rules having been made by the High Court under statutory authority took effect as if they were part of the statute and should be construed in the same manner.
;


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