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

2006 Supreme(AP) 860

B.PRAKASH RAO, G.YETHIRAJULU
Natubhai Chotabhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Patnam Shakuntala – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate.

Judgment

G. Yethirajulu, J.

This is a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court to answer the following questions:

"Whether the procedure contemplated under rules 32 and 33 of the Civil Rules of Practice is mandatory or it is curable which can be cured by moving an appropriate application and whether the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances can rectify the same."

2. A suit was filed for declaration of title and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and also to rectify the entries in the revenue records etc. The suit was filed by the GPA holder, but they have not obtained the orders of the court permitting the GPA holder to represent on their behalf under Rule 32 (1) of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice & Circular Orders, 1980 (for short "Civil Rules of Practice"), therefore, it is contended that the said suit is non-est in the eye of law. Since the presentation itself is invalid presentation, the lower Court totally erred in dismissing the application instead of allowing the same as prayed for.

3. After reference, the counsel representing both parties advanced arguments, therefore, the question whether the suit filed by the General Power of Att

























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