MOHAMMAD ABDUS SAMAD Vs. MAHBOOBUNNISA BEGUM
LAWS(APH)-1969-6-11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 11,1969

MOHD.ABDUS SAMAD Appellant
VERSUS
MAHBOOBUNNISA BEGUM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUNDARAM CHETTIAR V. VALLI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
DADOO BALAJI KORKU VS. KANHAIALAL DHANARAM [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TODUPUNOORY SRINIVAS VS. VENISHETTY MAHESH KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2006-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. SOHINDER SINGH BEDI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-377] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SHILPA CONSTRUCTION VS. JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SHILPA CONSTRUCTION VS. JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-144] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.)This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 23-8-1967 in I. A. No. 545 of 1967 in A.S. No. 45 of 1967.
(2.)The necessary facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 8 of 1966 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Court Hyderabad. It was alleged by her in the plaint that the defendant, her husband, had divorced her. She, therefore, sought to recover her meher, some jehza, articles or their value and also maintenance amount for the period of Iddat. The defendant, who is the petitioner before us, contested the suit. The suit was ultimately decreed on 21-12-1966. The defendant thereupon prefrred A. S. No. 45 of 1967. Along with the appeal, he filed I.A. No. 545 of 1967 under O. 41, R. 5 Civil P. C. He sought the execution of the decree to be stayed till the appeal was disposed of. This petition was resisted by the wife, who was the respondent in that appeal. Her contention was that since the husband has not furnished security as is required under O. 41, R. 5 (3) (c), Civil P. C., the petition was not maintainable. The learned Judge accepted this contention and held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Order 41, R. 5 (3) (c), Civil P. C. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. It is this order that is now challenged in this revision petition.
(3.)The civil revision petition first came before Basi Reddy, J. (as he then was). By his order dated 21-2-1968 the learned Judge directed the C.R.P. to be posted before a Bench and that is how it has come before us.
;


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