ALLA ALIAS PENTAKOTA SATYANARAYANA Vs. PENTAKOTA KRISHNA BHAGAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the motion on hand, the Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh (ADJ) is sought to be divested of his jurisdiction by withdrawal of Original Suit No. 54 of 2010 from his board on the strength of Article 228 of the Constitution of India extracted hereunder:

(2.) Relying on the aforementioned extraction from the Constitution, it is contended that withdrawal of the suit from the Court of ADJ has become imperative because suit has given rise to substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution having direct bearing on the disposal of the suit. The questions have been formulated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the application itself which may be noticed:

(3.) Before addressing ourselves to the above said questions, we cannot resist a presumption that the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is fully alive to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ('code of Code of Civil Procedure for short') including Order XXVIIA Code of Civil Procedure which reads thus: