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

1956 Supreme(AP) 1

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, BHIMASANKARAM, BHIMSHANKAR RAO, VISWANATHA SASTRY
KESAVARAPU VENKATESWARLU - Appellant
Versus
SARDHARALA SATYANARAYANA - Respondent
Decided On : 01-02-56

Rules 1 and 2 of the Appellate Side Rules are rules of procedure apportioning the work among Judges having the same powers and jurisdiction. A disobedience of Rule 1 is only an irregularity and does not render the proceedings void or nullify the decree and judgment rendered by the Division Bench in an appeal from a decree of a value not exceeding Rs. 7,500/-.

Headnote:

APPELLATE JURISDICTION - DIVISION BENCH - COMPETENCY TO HEAR APPEALS NOT EXCEEDING RS. 7,500/- WITHOUT REFERENCE BY SINGLE JUDGE - EFFECT OF HEARING WITHOUT OBJECTION - RULES OF PROCEDURE - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - WAIVER - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - DIRECTORY OR MANDATORY - RIGHT OF APPEAL - VESTED RIGHT - CONSTRUCTION OF RULES 1 AND 2 OF APPELLATE SIDE RULES.

Fact of the Case:

A question arose as to whether a Bench of two judges was competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500/- in value when it was not referred to it by a single judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules. Additionally, the effect of such a hearing without objection from the parties was also in question.

Finding of the Court:

1. A Bench of two judges is not incompetent to hear an appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500/- in value, even if it is not referred to it by a single judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules. The defect in competence is not material to the parties to the appeal. 2. If an appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500/- in value is posted for hearing before a Division Bench of two Judges without a reference by a single Judge under Rule 1, the Division Bench can direct the appeal to be posted before a single Judge in conformity with Rule 1. However, if the Division Bench proceeds to hear and decide the appeal, it does not act without jurisdiction, and the decree and judgment of the Division Bench are not a nullity but are valid and binding on the parties.

Issues: 1. Whether a Bench of two judges is competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500/- in value when it is not referred to it by a single judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules? 2. What is the effect of the hearing of such an appeal by a bench without objection having been taken by the parties to such hearing?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rules 1 and 2 of the Appellate Side Rules are rules of procedure apportioning the work among Judges having the same powers and jurisdiction. Rule 2 says that a Bench of two Judges may hear every appeal from the decree or order of a civil court except those mentioned in Rule 1. The exception in Rule 2 (2) (a) appears to be directory rather than mandatory, and a disobedience of it is only an irregularity and does not render the proceedings void or nullify the decree and judgment rendered by the Division Bench in an appeal from a decree of a value not exceeding Rs. 7,500/-. 2. There is no inherent incompetence or lack of jurisdiction in the division Bench consisting of two Judges to hear and decide the appeal. The parties can waive an objection to the irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and the decree or order passed by the Court could not be challenged as a nullity.

Final Decision: The answer to the first question referred to the Full Bench is in the affirmative. The second question does not call for an answer.

( 1 ) THE Order of reference was delivered by the Hon ble Mr. Justice Bhimasankaram. This appeal does not exceed Rs. 1,500/- in value. It is objected by mr. B. V. Subrahmanyam, the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the appeal, not having been referred to a Bench by a single judge under Rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules, cannot be heard by us. The question raised is one which is, in our opinion, of considerable importance. We may also note that several cases of this character have been disposed of by Division Benches. We,therefore, desire ro refer the following two questions to a Full Bench. 1. Is a Bench of two judges competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding rs. 7,500/--in value, when it is not referred to it by a single judge under rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules ? 2. In any case, what is the effect of the hearing of such an appeal by a bench without objection having been taken by the parties to such hearing ? this appeal will, therefore, be posted before the Hon ble Chief Justice for directions as regards the constitution of a Full Bench. Opinion of the Full Bench. Viswanatha Sastry, J: the following questions have been referred to us : 1. Is a Beach of two judges competent to hear a first appeal not exceed- ing Rs. 7,500/- in value, when it is not referred to it by a single judge under rule 1 of the Appellate Side Rules ? 2. In any case, what is the effect of the hearing of such an appeal by a bench without objection having been taken by the parties to such hearing ? the answer to these questions depends on the construction of Rules 1 and 2 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court which, so far as they are now relevant, run as follows : rule 1 (3) (c): "the following matters may be heard and determined by one Judge : Provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may, at any time, adjourn it for hearing and determination by a Bench of two Judges: every appeal from an original decree when the value of such appeal does rs. 7,5007- rule 2 (2) (a): "the following matters may be heard and determined by a Bench of to provided that if both Judges agree that the deteruination involves a they may order that the matter or the question of law, be referred to a * * * every appeal from the decree or order of a civil court except those mentionet it was sought to be argued for the respondent that the Appellate have been framed for administrative convenience and are in the domestic rules regulating (he internal management of the business of court and should not be construed as if they were statutory provision ing or taking away jurisdiction. For the appellant it was argued appellate Side Rules having been made by the High Court under authority took effect as if they were part of the statute and should be in the same manner. The power to frame rules regulating its practice and procedure on the High Court under Parliamentary enactments and the Letters f preserved by Article 225 of the Constitution, corresponding to Sec. 22 government of India Act, 1935 which takes us back to Sections 106 a of the Government of India Act, 1915. Sec. 108 of the Govt. of India 1915, corresponds to sections 13 and 14 of the High Courts Act 186. unnecessary to reproduce these statutory provisions or clauses 36 and the Letters Patent. Suffice it to say that these provisions empower the court to make rules for regulating the practice of the Court and to by its own rules for the exercise, by one or more judges or by division constituted by two or more judges, of the original and appellate jurisdis vested in the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court is the to determine which judge is to sit alone and which Judges are to const the several division courts. The Appellate Side Rules having been mad the High Court under statutory authority referred to above, if they a meaning and effect inconsistent with the Acts authorising them or if are in excess of the powers conferred thereunder or if they contravene provisions of





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 Back to top