PAMULAPATI VARADAYYA Vs. KOMMAREDDI CHINNAPPAREDDI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju J. dismissing the application filed by the appellant on the ground that it was not maintainable.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 filed O. S. No. 13 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur, to recover the amount due to him under promissory note alleged to have, been executed by the appellant and another. It was contended before the learned Judge that the promissory note was executed in connection with an illegal partnership and, therefore, it was not enforceable. It was also argued that it was not supported by consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived both these contentions and defendant 2 preferred an appeal to this Court.

(3.) IT is seen from the aforesaid provisions that the mere filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the execution of the decree but the appellate Court may, for sufficient causes, order stay of execution of the said decree. But it is contended that the provisions of those rules can only be invoked by a party who prefers an appeal and as the appellant before us is only a respondent in the appeal, he has no 'locus standi' to apply for stay. This argument ignores the provisions of R. 4.