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

1950 Supreme(Mad) 224

PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR
Kajjam Lakshminarasamma. – Appellant
Versus
Tanniru Seshayya. – Respondent


Advocates:
G. Venkatarama Sastri for Petitioner.
N. Rammohan Rao for Respondents.

Judgment.-

These are three connected petitions. C.R.P.No.318 of 1947 is a petition against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, dismissing E.P.No.62 of 1944 in S.C.No.200 of 1932, on the ground that the petition to amend the E. P. by adding a prayer to transfer the decree to the original side was barred by limitation, the decree itself having been passed on 16th January, 1933, and the application for transferring the decree to the original side, E.A.No. 483 of 1946, having been made only on 16th September, 1946, long after the 12 years’ period under section 48, Civil Procedure Code had expired, and the application for amendment of the E.P., E.A.No. 517 of 1946, having been filed only on 8th October, 1946, long after the expiry of the 12 years’ period under section 48, Civil Procedure Code. C. R. P. Nos. 319 and 320 of 1947 are filed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge rejecting the prayers in those two. execution applications.

I have perused the entire records, and heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, for the petitioner, urged that the decree in the small cause suit should not go to waste like this, and that the decree-holder, a p



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