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

1983 Supreme(AP) 488

P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Mohd. SHAMSUDDIN QUADRI – Appellant
Versus
State BANK OF HYDERABAD, NALLAKUNTA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, NALLAKUNTA, HYDERABAD – Respondent


P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE limit to which the inherent power of a Court under Sec. 151 CPC can be exercised is the main point that falls for consideration in this provision. In its material terms, Sec. 151 CPC provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.

( 2 ) THE material facts can now be noticed. The 1st respondent bank filed O. S. No. 1225/80 on the file of the 2nd Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, and O. S. No. 1233/80 on the file of the 5th Asst. Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, against certain defendants of whom one Guduri laxminarayana was a common defendant. When O. S. No. 1233/80 came up for hearing before the 5th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 4-8-1980, the 5th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, recorded the following proceedings :"written statement of D-l (Laxminarayana, the 1st defedant in that suit) is not filed. D-l is present. Counsel for D-3 is present. D-l filed a letter from the manager of the plaintiffbank who has executed that the entire outstanding in this suit has been recovered in full and accounts stood










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