TANNERU VENKATAIAH Vs. VADLAMUDI KASAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 to 7 filed I.P. No. 6 of 1990, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Markapur, to declare one Sri Thanneeru Musalaiah, the respondent No.24 herein, as insolvent. They have also impleaded three others, by name T. Venkataiah, T.Narayanamma and T.Guramma, inasmuch as the respondent No.24 transferred certain items of property in their favour. It was pleaded in the I.P. that respondent No. 24 had contracted debts with the petitioners in the I.P., but failed to discharge the same. According to them, the transfers were made, only to screen the debts.

(2.) The matter was contested by all the respondents in the I.P. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of respondents 2 and 3 in the I.P. On their behalf, an Advocate was engaged, and he reported no instructions. The trial court decreed the I.P., through its order dated 25-3-1995. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S.No. 112 of 1995, in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole. The appeal was dismissed on 22-6-2006. Hence, this CMSA.

(3.) Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that his clients were set ex parte, only on the ground that their counsel reported no instructions, and that the trial court did not clarify as to whether the counsel issued any notice to the parties. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, he contends that a material irregularity has crept into the judgment of the trial court. He submits that though a specific issue was raised before the lower appellate court, it was not at all adverted to.