Dismissed

Kanaka Laxmi v. U. Yellaiah

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023AS/2548/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC in its original jurisdiction to be not maintainable as the suit value was below the limit, rendering it the domain of the District Court. However, the appeal was dismissed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings pending in the District Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed in interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of proceedings pending in the competent District Court, subject to restoration if the District Court dismisses the appeal.

Kanaka Laxmi Vs U. Yellaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:^,

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶5

APPEAL SUIT NO: 2548 OF^2O0O

¶6

Appeal Under section 96 of C.P.C. against the^{Judgment and Decree dated} 27-06-2000 made in O.S. No.65 of 1997 on^{the file of the Court of the Senior Civil} Judge at Siddipet.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kanaka Laxmi, W/o l\llallesham. Occ- Household,^{R/o Gadicheriapalli(V), R/M} Siddipet, Medak

¶9

...AppellanUPlaintiif

¶10

AND

¶11

Udtha Yellaiah, S/o Y. Pedda Rajaiah, Occ-^{Shepheredand Agril. R/o} Gadicherlapalle (V), R/lM Siddipet, Medak^Dist

¶12

U. Rajavva, Wo Y. Pedda Rajaiah, , Occ-^{Shephered andAgril, Rlo} Gadicherlapalle (V) R/fM Siddipet, tvledak^Dist.

¶13

P. Yellavva, Wo Pochaiah, Occ-^{Household, R/o Giraipalli (V), Kondoak (M),} Medak Dist.

¶14

B. Bhoolaxmi, Wo Moudaiah, Occ- Household.^{E/o Village and Revenue (M),} Kondapak, Medak Dist.

¶15

... ResPondents/Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. C.^{HARI PREETH, Advocate}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : SRl.^{B. RANGANAHTA RAO, Advocate}

¶18

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN

¶20

I \

¶21

I I

¶22

APPEAL SUIT No.2548 of 2OOO

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

1.. The present appeal assails judgment and decree dated 27.06.2000 in O.S.No.65 of 1997 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipct.

¶25

The value of the present suit, as made out from the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal was Rs.2,38,598/-. As per Section l7 (1) (ii) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh (prcsentll, Tclangana) Civil Courts Act, 1972, the appeal against judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge Court lies to the District Court, if the value of such suit or proceedings is not more than Rs.3,O0,00O/

¶26

In the present case, the valuc of the suit indicates the same is below Rs.3,00,000/- and due to wrong assumption 1-he prcsent appeal was filed before this Court. However, it is rcpresented that subsequently, the appellant realized that the competent Court was District Court and moved an appeal before the District Court and the said case was transferred to Adclitional District Judge Cor-rrt, Siddipet, as per jurisdiction and the result of such appeal is not knou,n.

¶27

In vier.l, of invoking of appeal betbre the concerned con'rpetent Court having^{jurisdiction,} this appcal is^not

¶28

¶29

maintainabie bcfore this Ccurt. Llcu,ever, cin accoLrnl ol pendinq appeals iri i-roth lorums therc rua1, oc co.,1],,.i.sr,,r, arr]ong iitig;rr-,ts, Hence, for: zrn5r reason. if thc: appezrl v,,hic1-i is fiiccl beforc lhe Disl,rict Court and tr;rnsferrcr-l to the jurisdiction Cor.irt i-" dismissecl, not on rnerit. r.Vhen apirropr-iate applica.tiorr is lilr:d to restore {.he said appeal, the samr sha]l l_;e considcred in the background of filing the pre senL appcal ano pendenc.y of the same before^r.his Court.

¶30

With the abovr.: obselvatiori, the appeal is disrnissed. F-url.her, it is made clear tl-rilt this jurlgni<:i-rL shall not come in way of consiclr:ring the appeal belore thc compctcnt Court. on mcrits. No ordc:r a1s t.o cosl_s, lVlisccllane or_rs petirior-rs. il any, pencling shall surn d closed.

¶31

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTBAR //TRUE COPY// &t"'

¶32

SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

'1 . The Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet^{(with records)}

¶35

One CC to^{SRl. C. HARI PREETH,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶36

One CC to^{SRl. B. RANGANADHRAO,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶37

Two CD CoPies

PSR

,)$k

HIGH COURT

ML,J

DATED:1410912023

JUDGMENT

1 e STAT€
.
oo 2 B [E[ 20'tx ->o
*
I
D t: |: ,3tCt{

¶45

AS.No.2548 of 2000

¶46

DISMISSTNG THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶47

Kanaka Laxmi v. U. Yellaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaka Laxmi v. U. Yellaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bung Vs The State of Telangana

Kothuri Gundaiah, Adilabad Vs Kothuri Vijaya Kumar and 11 Others

V. Shankaramma, Vs B. Ramulu

Varsha Upadyaya and 4 Ors. Vs Mr.Prabhulal Gujjar and 5 Ors.

Andhra pradesh Industrial Infrastucture co., Ltd., Vs a.K.Sagar (died)