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

1991 Supreme(AP) 31

J.ESWARA PRASAD, M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Government Of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
B. Sathaiah – Respondent


JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the State (defendant in suit) under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16-7-1990 of the learned single Judge in C. M. P. No. 8300 of 1990 in the C. M. A. , refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The C. M. A. itself arises out of an order in 1 A No. 272/87 dated 9-12-1987 refusing to set aside an ex purte decree dated 19-2-1987 passed against the State by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in O. S. No. 4/85 in a sum of rs. 1,60,001/ -. The amount, was claimed towards compensation payable for the alleged taking over of wells, said to be existing within certain property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. So far as the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in appeals under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. , there is no difficulty in view of the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in Srinivas vs. J. N. T. University, explaining the decision of the Supt erne Court in Shah babulal Khimji vs. Jayaberi.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) Sri P. V. Narayaua rao, however, raised a preliminary objection
























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