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

1978 Supreme(AP) 38

V.MADHAVA RAO
Raichander Monhanlal – Appellant
Versus
Permanand Sanghi – Respondent


V. MADHAVA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by the plaintiff against the Judgement of the Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C. M. A. No. 79 of 1976, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, returning the plaint in O. S. No. 368 of 1969 to be presented before proper Court.

( 2 ) IN this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an interesting point with regard to the establishment of a Court to be called City Civil Court. He contended that the Andhra Pradesh, Civil Courts Act, provides for only one City Civil Court, with Judges of different cadres for cities or Hyderabad and Secunderabad. As the City Civil Court Constitutes one Court, one Judge cannot pass an order to return the plain to be presented before another Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction, in the same City Civil Court. If a particular Judge finds that according to his cadre he is not competent to hear that particular suit, to the Chief judge, City Civil Court for being allotted and posted before another Judge having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further elaborated the point by stating that if the pla



















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