JELEJAR HORMOSJI GOTLA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us on a reference made by the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under S. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The point which arises for decision in this reference is whether the Hyderabad Suits Against Government Act (V of 1320 Fasli) Hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Act is void by reason of its repugnancy to the Code of Civil Procedure which was extended to the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in April 1951.

(3.) For a better appreciation of the point in controversy, we may, at the outset, briefly mention the admitted facts. On 23/07/1953, the plaintiff gave notice to the former Government of Hyderabad, under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and on 23/11/1953 instituted the suit against them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 by way of damages for an alleged breach of the contract entered into by him with the Government. The Government filed their written statement raising various contentions regarding the tenability of the claim made by the plaintiff. The trial of the suit was taken up sometime in the year 1955. Eventually, on October 1958, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (O.S.). Against the said decree, the Government of Andhra Pradesh preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was heard Manohar Pershad and Narasimham JJ. During the hearing of the appeal, the learned Government Pleader filed two petitions : (1) for permission to file an additional grounds, and ( 2) for permission to raise additional written statement. The additional written statement raised and objection that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the fact that necessary permission under the mandatory provisions of the Hyderabad Act had not been obtained and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine. On 8/11/1962, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal. It may be mentioned that the learned Judges gave permission to the Government to raise the additional pleas, reserving however, the right of the plaintiff to file a rejoinder.