BANK OF INDIA Vs. POTHULA VEERA KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-plaintiff.

(2.) Though respondents-defendants had been served, none represents them.

(3.) Sri S. Suryaprakasa Rao, learned Counsel representing the petitioner-Bank of India, would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur had totally erred in reckoning the period of limitation having been confused by the concept of merger, and importing the same while calculating the period of limitation. The learned Counsel also would maintain that whether stay application had been moved before the appellate Court along with appeal, whether stay had been granted or not, these aspects would not seriously alter the situation and the period to be reckoned from the date of disposal of the appeal. If the date of appeal decree to be taken into consideration, the final decree application was filed within time. The learned Counsel had laid emphasis on Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (for short 'the Act') on the aspect when the right to apply accrues. Learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Posani Ramachandraiah v. Daggupati Sashamma, 1978 2 APLJ 1.