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

1978 Supreme(AP) 250

PUNNAIAH, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO
M. R. Brahmaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Ibrahim Khan – Respondent


PUNNAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant In C. M. A. No. 269/1977 and CMA. No. 270/ 1977 is the respondent in E A. No. 95/1976 and E. A. No. 101/1976 respectively in E. P. No. 27/1976 and he preferred the two appeals having been aggrieved with the common order passed by the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E. A. Nos. 95/1976 and 101/1976 in E. P. No. 27/1976. C. M. A. Nos. 361 and 362 of 1977 are preferred by the petitioners in E. A Nos. 95 and 101 of 1976,

( 2 ) THESE appeals were originally posted before our learned brother Madhava Reddy, J. The learned Judge felt that an important question of law as to whether a petition under order 21 Rules 99, 100 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure pending on the date of the commencement of the amended Civil Procedure Code should be enquired into and disposed of in accordance with the amended Code of Civil procedure or in accordance with the old Code of Civil Procedure in force on the date of the presentation cf that petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge observed that this question would arise for consideration in several execution matters pending in the lower courts as well as in appeals preferred against the orders passed therein and i





























































































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