SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(AP) 1262

P.S.NARAYANA
Parbanna – Appellant
Versus
Veershetty – Respondent


P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal was preferred under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in A. S. 23 of 1995 modifying the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Zaheerabad delivered in O. S. 225 of 1998.

( 2 ) THIS appeal was filed with an application to condone the delay of 285 days in C. M. P. No. 16332 of 2002. This Court allowed the said condone delay petition. Hence, the matter has been coming up today before this Court for admission.

( 3 ) SRI K. Subramanyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the appellants submits that the second appeal was filed with an application to condone the delay in filing this second appeal; that unless and until the application for condonation of delay is condoned, the second appeal cannot be registered and hence in such a case there is no question of following the procedure laid down under Order 41, Rule 9, C. P. C. as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1999, Act 46 of 1999. The learned counsel for the appellants draws my attention to the decision in Jnandasundari v. Madhab Chandra, AIR 1932 Cal 482 and in Manthena Ra




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top