( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is coming up for admission today.

( 2 ) SRI Ramachandra Reddy had lodged a caveat on behalf of R-1 in the appeal-cum-plaintiff in the suit.

( 3 ) SRI Ajay Kumar, standing counsel for a. P. TRANSCO had raised only one substantial question of law which is as hereunder: whether the judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 89 of 1998 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, as confirmed in A. S. No. 50 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kadapa can be said to be valid and binding on the Transmission Corporation of A. P. orthe A. P. Southern Power Distribution company Limited which came into existence subsequent to the accident in question?

( 4 ) ALL other questions which had been canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant are ancillary or incidental questions.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel would maintain that the suit was instituted as indigent person in O. P. No. 51 of 1997 which was numbered as O. S. No. 89 of 1998 for recovery of damages. The counsel would maintain that inasmuch as the present appellant who is prosecuting the second appeal was not in existence at all either on the date of accident or on the date of institution of the suit and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document