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

1955 Supreme(AP) 316

Kesavarapu Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
Sreedharala Satyanarayana – Respondent


BHIMASANKARAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal does not exceed Rs. 7,500 in value. It is objected by Mr. B. V. Subrahmanyam, the learned advocate for the appellants, 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 by Division Benches. We, therefore, desire to 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 ?the appeal then came on for hearing before the Full Bench (Viswanatha Sastri, bhimasankaram and Krishna Rao, JJ.) in pursuance of the above order of reference.

( 2 ) THE following questions have been referred to us :- (1) Is a Bench of two Judges competent to hear a first appeal not exceeding Rs. 7,500 in value when it is













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