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

1991 Supreme(AP) 9

J.ESWARA PRASAD, M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Yenamala Chandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Nuvvula Chandramonli Naidu – Respondent


JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by neeladri Rao J. , by order dated 26-4-1990 on the basis that the decision of this Court in M. Venkaiah Naidu vs. Neelavenamma decided by Syed Shah mohammed Quadri J. , requires re-consideration. The learned Judge, while making the referring order, gave certain reasons for disagreeing with the view expressed by Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J. and also referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in N. Pappammal vs. L. Chidambaram.

( 2 ) THE point arising in the revision is whether it is incumbent on the civil court to follow the procedure mentioned in cl. (b) of Or. XXXVIII rule 5 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code while passing an order of conditional attachment under sub-rule (3) of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC ? Quadri, J. took the view that it is necessary.

( 3 ) NEELADRI Rao, J. took the view that the Court could pass a conditional order of attachment under sub-rule (3) of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 cpc without issuing any prior notice as mentioned in cl. (b) of O. XXXVIII rule 5 (1) CPC.

( 4 ) THE revision was preferred by the plaintiff. He filed the suit o. S. No. 84 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-C























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