( 1 ) WITH the request and consent of both parties, the C. M. A. itself is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up before this Court in C. M. P. No. 3178 of 2003 in c. M. P. 1186 of 2003 in C. M. A. No. 327 of 2003, Sri Muniraja representing mr. Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff had made the following submissions.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel contended that the rejection of the plaint by the learned district Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District in c. F. R. No. 8110/25/x/2002 by an order dated 5-12-2002 cannot be sustained especially in the light of the fact that the plaint was returned by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Addanki on the ground of want of jurisdiction and observed that the proper forum is the District Court. Complying the same, the plaint was represented by the plaintiff before the District Court, Ongole and the learned District Judge, instead of entertaining the said plaint had rejected as riot maintainable. The learned counsel also had brought to my notice that, in fact, the principal Junior Civil Judge at Addanki had entertained the suit. The suit was numbered as O. S. No. 48 of 2002. But, however, at the time of hearing of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document