AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.—C.M.P. No. 2226 of 2006 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted on 2.11.2006 in C.M.P. No. 1969 of 2006. Sri P. Gopal Das, learned Counsel representing the vacate petitioner, respondent No. 1 in civil miscellaneous appeal raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the civil miscellaneous appeal. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mr. Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and Another,
Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel representing the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal would contend that in view of the confused legal position prevailing on the said day, the civil miscellaneous appeal had been preferred. The learned Counsel also would contend that liberty may be given to prefer a regular appeal in the light of the decision of the Full Bench referred to supra.
Heard the Counsel.
Though the matter is coming under the caption "interlocutory", inasmuch as an objection relating to maintainability of the civil miscellaneous appeal is raised and after hearing the Counsel on record, at the request of the Counsel the civil miscellaneous appeal is being disposed of finally.
The present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-claim petitioner as against the order made in E.A. No. 281 of 2005 in E.P. No. 189 of 202 in O.S. No. 332 of 1988 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, recorded certain reasons and ultimately dismissed the E.A. No. 281 of 2005 in E.P. No. 189 of 2002 in O.S. No. 332 of 1988 with costs by an order dated 9th October 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the claim petitioner preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
While reconsidering the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in B. Nookaraju Vs. M.S.N. Charities and others, , the Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy v. Gunti Yashoda (supra), held that against an order passed under Rule 58 (3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 of C.P.C. regular appeals u/s 96, but not miscellaneous appeals u/s 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are maintainable and the judgment in B. Nookaraju v. M.S.N. Charities (supra), does not represent correct position of law. It is also stated that in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction, regular appeal does not lie to this Court, but would lie to the District Court, Guntur.
In the light of the same and in view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to supra, this Court is of the opinion that the civil miscellaneous appeal as such is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the appellant to file regular appeal to the appropriate Court, if the appellant is so advised, and if need be by moving appropriate application u/s 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
With the above observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.