Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUMATHI JAGADAM
Vijaya Cotton Corporation,, Guntur Represented By Proprietor Adapala Dayakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Dantu Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Late Rajagopala Reddy – Respondent
ORDER :
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
1 The issue for consideration on the present revision is whether a litigant, who files a petition before the executing court and, upon it being returned with observations regarding its maintainability, can, without representing the matter before that court, directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The obvious answer is in the negative.
2 The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 11.01.2024, whereby his application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2023 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 arising out of O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to set aside the sale held on 23/11/2023, was returned with the following endorsement.
Returned 11/01/2024 “How this claim petition is maintainable, since no right title or interest will be passed to the petitioner and pray attach of schedule property. Hence Returned.”
3 The first respondent, as plaintiff, instituted O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the second respo
Revision under Art.227 allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional errors or patent perversities, which were not found here.
The maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC and the importance of providing proof of ownership in attachment before judgment ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of protecting the rights of third parties, such as bona fide purchasers, under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not be maintainable if the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an app....
A plaintiff must state a cause of action and the question of limitation is to be determined at trial, not through an application to reject the plaint.
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority; amendments to pleadings must be sought in good faith and with due diligence.
A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit; splitting claims without court permission is impermissible.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
