The proceedings before the Deputy Tahsildar under the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, are governed by Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, and the Deputy Tahsildar has jurisdiction to restore any proceeding dismissed for default under Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for decision in this case is whether the procedure prescribed by Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, applies to the proceedings before the Tahsildar under the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act No. XVIII of 1956 ). The facts which gave rise to this question are shortly these :- the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition filed an application, A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959 before the Deputy Tahsildar, Prattipadu, under sections 6, 11 and 13 of the andhra Tenancy Act to evict the respondent from the land which is the subject-matter of the application. On 6th July, 1959, when the petition was called, the petitioners were absent. Therefore, the Deputy Tahsildar dismissed the petition. His order is as follows :- "the petitioners are absent. The petition is dismissed. "

( 2 ) WHEN the petitioners came to know of the dismissal of the petition, they filed an application supported by an affidavit before the Deputy Tahsildar on 12th July, 1959, to restore A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959. On that, the Deputy Tahsildar, by his order, dated 22nd July, 1959, accepted the statement in the affidavit and restored A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959 to file. Against that order restoring the petition, the respondent filed T. A. No. 36 of 1959 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram. One of the questions argued on behalf of the respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer was that the Deputy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to restore the petition which was dismissed for default on 6th July, 1959. It was further contended before the Revenue divisional Officer that the respondent was not given any notice by the Deputy tahsildar before restoring A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959. The Revenue Divisonal Officer held that the provisions of Order, 9, Civil Procedure Code, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Deputy Tahsildar under the Andhra Tenancy Act. Therefore, he allowed the appeal and restored the order, dated 6th July, 1959 of the deputy Tahsildar dismissing A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959. The Revenue Divisional Officer pointed out also that the respondent was not given any notice before A. T. P. No. 8 of 1959 was restored.

( 3 ) IT is argued by Sri K. B. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the proceedings before the Deputy Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act are governed as far as may be by the provisions of the Civil Procedure code. In the Act itself, there is no procedure prescribed which would govern the proceedings initiated under the Act. But under section 19 (1) of the Andhra tenancy Act, the Government may, by notification in the Andhra Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Under section 19 (2 ). "in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for- (a) the procedure to be followed in making enquiries and hearing appeals under the Act ;"

( 4 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by section 19, the Government of Andhra made rules. Rule 14, thus framed, is as follows :-"14 (1) All proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer under the act shall be governed as far as may be by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. "under section 19, clauses (3) of the Act, "all rules made under this section shall, as soon as may be, after they are made, be placed on the table of the Legislative Assembly and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as the Legislative Assembly may make within fourteen days thereafter during the session in which they are so laid. "

( 5 ) RELYING upon section 19 and rule 14, Sri K. B. Krishnamurthy contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which govern the proceedings in a civil court, also govern the proceedings before the Deputy Tahsildar or the Revenue divisional Officer. It necessarily follows, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Order 9, Civil Procedure Code, which is one of the orders that govern th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document