PINGLE VENKATA RAMA REDDY Vs. KAKARLA BUCHANNA
LAWS(APH)-1962-3-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 19,1962

PINGLE VENKATA RAMA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
KAKARLA BUCHANNA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TRIPURA SUNDARAMMA V. ABDUL KHADER [REFERRED TO]
VENKATRANGA V. SITHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN SINGH V. BARKAT RAM [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV V. RAJA KISTAPPA NAIK [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH V. TAKHAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VENKAPPA V. LAKSHMIKANTH RAO [REFERRED TO]
Varanasi Padmanabham VS. Inaturi Joga Rao [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHINAMURTHY PILLAI VS. VEDAMURTHY MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR DAS GUPTA VS. KARAMAT ALI KHA [REFERRED TO]
ADAIKAPPA CHETTIAR VS. NATESAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJA OF RAMNAD VS. VELUSAMI TEVAR [REFERRED TO]
SAITH CHANDMAL DADDHA VS. RAJA PRATAPGIRJI CHELA NARSINGH [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAJA D.K. VENKATA LINGAMA NAYANIM BAHADUR VARU (SINCE DECEASED) AND ANR. VS. RAJAH INUGANTI RAJAGOPALA VENKATA NARASIMHA RAYANIM BAHADUR VARU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KATRAGADDA RAMAYYA VS. KOLLI NAGESWARARAO [LAWS(APH)-1967-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
L RAMA GOUD DIED LRS GOPINATH VS. RAJU BAI [LAWS(APH)-1970-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
KOMARENALLI BALARAJ VS. AKARAPPU GURUCHERENAM [LAWS(APH)-1962-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
G PEDDA ADENNA VS. M GORINDA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-1979-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA TARAFDAR VS. NEMAI KRISHNA TARAFDAR [LAWS(CAL)-1973-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT RAI HARBANS RAI VS. DOGAR MAL JAWAHAR MAL [LAWS(P&H)-1968-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. M RAMU [LAWS(KAR)-1970-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
KOMARENALLI BALARAJ VS. AKARAPPU GURUCHERENAM [LAWS(APH)-1961-2-24] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chandra Reddy, C.J. - (1.)This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by our learned brothers Manohar Pershad and Kumarajju JJ. as they thought that it involves important questions of law which will be adverted to presently.
(2.)The facts and the circumstances leading upto the litigation may be briefly related. The appellant obtained a decree against the respondents on the 2 8/12/1931. He levied execution of his decree on the 31st of October 1932 seeking to attach all the move-able and immoveable properties of the judgment-debtor and part satisfaction was recorded. Subsequently, a number of execution petitions were filed with prayers either for attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtors or for his arrest. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to them except to the one which preceded the execution petition in question and that is the one dated 25-8-1951. In this petition, the decree-holder prayed for attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtors. It must be noted here that by this time more than 12 years had lapsed from the date of the decree. Notwithstanding this, the judgment-debtors did not raise any objection that it was barred under Section 48 C. P. C. However, as the appellant did not pay the process fee, it was dismissed for default. Within three years thereof, the present execution petition giving rise to this appeal was filed. This time also the mode in which the assistance of the Court was sought was by attachment of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtors.
(3.)This was resisted by the judgment-debtors on the plea that the decree became barred under Section 48 C. P. C. The executing Court disallowed this objection since the prayer in the present execution petition was the same as in the previous one viz., the attachment of the properties. The trial Court accordingly ordered execution to. proceed. On appeal, the District Judge differed from the conclusion of the trial Judge and dismissed the execution petition. The decree-holder, aggrieved by this decision, brought the present appeal.


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