N. TYAGARAJU Vs. A. NARAYANA AWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt. 31-01-1992 in O.S. No. 103 of 1975 of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Anantapur. Before I deal with the appeal and ASMP. 1630/2013, it is necessary to mention certain events which took place prior to and during the hearing of this appeal.

(2.) On 22.7.2013, initially when this appeal and ASMP were listed before me, it was suggested by Sri S.D. Gowd, the previous counsel for respondents 3-6 that this bench may not hear the case. The reason according to counsel was that I had appeared for one of the parties in the case. This was found to be factually incorrect as I had not in fact appeared in the case. Counsel was also not able to substantiate this contention. As the appellant was 93 years old, the suit related to specific performance of agreements of sale dt. 14.8.1968 and 27.1.1970, and after full trial which dragged on from 1975 to 1992, it was decided, the appeal was taken up for hearing on 23.7.2013 and 24.7.2013 and arguments of counsel for appellant, Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy were heard. He argued the appeal for 4 hours on 23-07-2013 and 24-07-2013 in the presence of the party in person/Advocate Sri N. Prem Raj (5th respondent in the appeal/3rd petitioner in A.S.M.P. No. 1630 of 2013). At that time, neither he nor the then counsel for respondents 3-6 in the appeal, Sri S.D. Gowd raised any objection for the hearing of the appeal. After the arguments of appellants' counsel concluded on 24.7.2013, Sri Gowd sought time to argue the appeal or to advise his clients to engage another counsel. So the appeal was posted to 29.7.2013 after passing a detailed order on 24.7.2013 recording what transpired in the court and stating that no further time will be granted for arguments to respondents.

(3.) On 29-07-2013, Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel, appeared for 4th respondent and stated that he had entered appearance for 4th respondent in the appeal only on the said date and sought time to argue the appeal and the ASMP. 1630/2013. Therefore, to accommodate him, the case was posted to 1.8.2013 to hear his arguments in the appeal and the A.S.M.P. Even on 29-07-2013, he did not state that he would argue only A.S.M.P and not the appeal.