VALLURI GANGARAJU AND ANOTHER Vs. CHATRATI RAMASWAMY
LAWS(APH)-1969-2-15
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 11,1969

Valluri Gangaraju And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Chatrati Ramaswamy Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VENKATA SWAMI V. K. CHELAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BINDU GOVIND V. HEMANTH GOVIND [REFERRED TO]
JODH SINGH V. BHAGWAN DAS NANAK CHAND [REFERRED TO]
JODH SINGH V. FIRM BAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
KUNHAMMAD HAJEE V. KOZHUVAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH SINGH V. SUBEDAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AWAPPA TATOBA V. DATTO KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
MARIMUTHU PILIAI V. ABDAULLH [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NARAIN V. MAHARAJ NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL HEALTH OFFICER ONGOLE VS. MATTA RANGANAYAKULU [REFERRED TO]
MIR HASAN ALI KHAN VS. MIR DAWAR HUSSAIN KHAN [REFERRED TO]
BASAMMA VS. SHIVAMMA AND [REFERRED TO]
NACHARAMMAL VS. VEERAPPA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA VS. MONJOOR AHMED [REFERRED TO]
BAJYA HARI VS. TARACHAND HUKUMCHAND [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.)The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in these appeals is whether the order passed on 22-11-60 in proceedings in I. A. 489 of 1959 filed under Order 20, Rule 15 C.P.C. to pass a final decree, constitute a step in aid of the execution of the decree.
(2.)The facts which give rise to this question may briefly be stated. O.S. No. 160 of 1951 was a suit instituted for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, disputes between the parties were referred to arbitrators in I.A. 82 of 1956. The arbitrators gave their award on 27-7-56. According to the award, a decree was passed on 7-8-56. Clause 12 of the decree reads ; -
"That the parties do treat this award as final decree ; that the costs necessary for the passing of a final decree be borne by the parties in proportion of the amounts decreed in their favour and that each party do bear its own costs so incurred".
and clause 16 reads thus :
"that the court fee due to the Government on the amounts decreed be paid before execution".

(3.)The decree holder under a mistaken impression that the decree dated 7-8-56 was a preliminary decree and was required to obtain a final decree thereupon, filed I. A. 489 of 1959 on 6-8-59 under Order 20, Rule 15 C.P.C. to make the said decree final.
;


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