Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-05-1991
Reported in : 1991(2)ALT93
ORDERP.L.N. Saram, J.1. C.M.P. No. 2268 of 1991 was one filed Under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 242 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent. 2. C.M.P. 2267 of 1991 was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole respondent and C.M.P. No. 12529 of 1990 was filed to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole respondent in the revision. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it is stated that the advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the revision petition informed their Advocate by his letter dt. 22-3-1990 that the sole respondent in the revision petition died on 16-1-1990. Immediately thereafter, they caused enquiries and came to know that the said statement is correct and also on enquiries they came to know that the sole respondent died issue-less and his brother's sons, viz., the persons sought to be impleaded are the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1991
Reported in : 1991(1)ALT496
Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State (defendant in suit) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16-7-1990 of the learned single Judge in CM.P.No.8300 of 1990 in the CM.A., refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The C.M.A. itself arises out of an order in I A.No.272/87 dated 9-12-1987 refusing to set aside an ex parte decree dated 19-2-1987 passed against the State by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar in OS.No.4/85 in a sum of Rs. 1,60,001/-. The amount was claimed towards compensation payable for the alleged taking over of wells, said to be existing within certain property acquired under the Land Acquisition fact. So far as the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge in appeals under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C., there is no difficulty in view of the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in Srinivas v. J.N.T. University, 1990(2) APLJ 55 (SN), expla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-27-1991
Reported in : 1991(3)ALT542; 1993CriLJ558
1. A 'Call Attention Motion' No. 329 of 1981 was moved in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 1981 regarding the execution of jungle clearance works in the Irrigation Circle, Nellore District, allegating that works costing more than 60 lakh rupees were entrusted to the contractors without calling for tenders. 2. Thereupon, the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh directed Mr. L. R. Kapoor, the then Chief Engineer, Major Irrigation, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations in the execution of the works. In that connection, he visited Nellore and conducted an enquiry from 4-4-1981 to 6-4-1981 and submitted his preliminary report to the State Government on 17-4-1981 pointing out various irrgularities and illegalities committed by the Engineers in the execution of the jungle clearance works in the Nellore Irrigation Circle. Then the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 313 dated 20-7-1981 appointing Mr. N. V. M. Krishna, the then Chief Engineer, (Investiga...
Tag this Judgment!