1982 Supreme(AP) 361

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHOUDARY, KODANDA RAMAYYA
E. Mangamma - Appellant
Versus
A. Muniswamy Naidu - Respondent
Crl. P. Nos. 1934/78 and 4219/79
Decided On : 10-06-82
.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, Order 43, Rule 1(r) – Appeal against expert injunction granted by the trial Court – Maintainable.

       Practice and Precedents – Judgment rendered by Madras High Court prior to 1954 – Not binding on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

       Held : It is clear that under Order 43, Rule 1(r), the right of appeal given to the affected party is not only against a final order of injunction passed by the lower Court after hearing both the parties under Rule 4 of Order 39 but also against an exparte order of injunction passed by the Lower Court under Order 39 Rule 1 without hearing the affected party. In the context of Order 43, Rule 1(r) C.P.C., the statute treated even an exparte order of injunction as a decision but at all event appealable. Where such a clear statutory provision makes an appeal available it would not be open for the Court to deny or to limit that right of appeal to orders passed after hearing of the parties dealing which there is a separate provision. Such a reasoning would render a part of Order 43, Rule 1(r) purposeless.

       A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 350 dismissed from.

       1980 (1) A.L.T. 90 followed.

       Constitutional Court like a high Court of Andhra Pradesh exercise judicial powers that from part of the sovereign powers of a State like the State of Andhra High Court once it is established can only enjoy and exercise the judicial powers of the State of Andhra and can suffer on diminution of Its powers. authority and. jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution. Conceptually this power which the Andhra High Court exercises belonging to the State of Andhra and flowing directly from the provision of the Constitution and from a date not anterior to the date of Andhra State coming Into being can have nothing to do with the powers jurisdiction and authority which the Madras High Court exercised earlier over these territories and cannot be subordinate to the Madras High Court. The powers authority and jurisdiction of all the High Courts under the Constitution are equal and are alike and no High Court has been given by the Constitution superior powers over the other High Courts. II follows that the pre-1954 decisions of the Madras High Court can bind the Andhra High Court no more than they can bind say, the Calcutta High Court or the Bombay High Court or the Karnataka High Court. The powers authority and jurisdiction of a Constitution Court like the High Court of Andhra cannot therefore be subordinated to or inferiorated to the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.

       1955 A.L.T., 53 (Crl.) held not good law.

       C.R.PS, Dismissed.