Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Pinapala Venkateswarlu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 10, 1958
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778149

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Pinapala Venkateswarlu

Legal References

Reported In
(1958)1MLJ337

Excerpt

- p. rajagopalan, o.c.j.1. we agree with the office that clause 15 of the letters patent does apply. the application to amend the decree in the second appeal certainly invoked the civil appellate jurisdiction vested in this court. if so leave of the learned judge who dismissed the application to amend the decree was necessary under rule 95 of the appellate side rules read with clause 15 of the letters patent. no such leave was asked for or obtained. the appeal is incompetent.

Full Judgment

P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.

1. We agree with the office that clause 15 of the Letters Patent does apply. The application to amend the decree in the Second Appeal certainly invoked the civil appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. If so leave of the learned Judge who dismissed the application to amend the decree was necessary under Rule 95 of the Appellate Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent. No such leave was asked for or obtained. The appeal is incompetent.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Pinapala Venkateswarlu vs Same Subject Civil
Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales