KESARLA RAGHURAM Vs. NARASIPALLE VASUNDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question of law which arises in this second appeal is whether the memo filed before the Court below signed by both the advocates of the parties concerned without being signed by the parties, could be acted upon? The format of the case is : the tenant who is the appellant herein filed R.C.C. 14 of 1979 against the respondent herein for restoration of certain amenities under section 14 of the Rent control Act averring therein that the respondent-landlady is deliberately trying to cut off the electricity connections and so on. That petition is still pending. Thereafter on 8-8-1979 a quite notice under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act was served on the appellant and thereafter the suit was filed for eviction. The suit was decreed and the appeal was preferred which was numbered as A.S. no. 55/1981. The said appeal was directed originally to be posted for final hearing on 18-6-1982. However C.M. P. No. 27/1982 was filed on 25-2-1982 for advancing the case and accordingly the case was advanced to 25-3-1982. Be that as it may, when the matter came up for hearing on 25-3-1982 a memo which by implication a compromise memo signed by the advocates of both the parties concerned, was filed. The compromise memo reads as under:

(2.) In the circumstances, the impugned order which is not in compliance with the provisions enacted under 0. 23, R. 3, C.P.C. is set aside and the case is remitted back to the appellate Court directing it to renumber the appeal and hear the case after giving due opportunity and notice to both the parties.

(3.) The second appeal is accordingly allowed, but there shall be no order as to casts.