IN RE: BADRAJALA NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises out of the Office Note relating to S.R. Nos. 18960 and 18971 of 1957.

(2.) THE facts are : These S.R. Numbers are connected with S.R. Nos. 18969 and 18970 which are being dealt with separately and arise from the proceedings of the lower Court appointing a Commissioner for an enquiry into the waste committed by the respondent and for ascertainment of future mesne profits respectively, under Order 20, Rule 12. This order for appointment of a Commissioner, I need not point out is not one of the orders appealable under Order 43, Rule 1. The lower appellate Court entertained however an appeal under the latter provision and dismissed it. Thereupon these C.M.S. As. are being sought to be filed against the order of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) FIRST of all assuming for the sake of argument that the order is appealable, there can only be an appeal therefrom under Section 104 and this appeal has already been exhausted. Therefore there is no further appeal available to the aggrieved party. Only revision petitions will be competent as against the orders impugned. This argument is, of course, based on the assumption that an appeal is a proper remedy and it is mentioned only in the circumstances of this case to show that in any event a second appeal cannot be preferred.