B SRIKANTH Vs. ERUKALA LAXMI SUVARNAMUKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 24-11-2005. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani entered appearance. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that on 24-11-2005 while ordering Notice Board Admission, further ordered interim stay of all further proceedings on condition of the petitioner/ appellant depositing half of the decretal amount and costs within a period of six weeks failing which the stay granted shall stand vacated and on such deposit the respondent/plaintiff had been given liberty to withdrawn the same without furnishing any security. But however, the said conditional order was not complied with.

(2.) Be that as it may, the learned Counsel representing the appellant Sri C. V. Narayana Rao would maintain that the two substantial questions of Law which arise for consideration in this second appeal are as hereunder :

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ganshyam Das Mandhani would maintain that the first question in fact was not pleaded in the written statement before the Court of first instance and the said question was raised at the appellate stage. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the appellate Court had taken into consideration the submissions made by both the Counsel and recorded clear findings at Para-20 placing reliance on certain judgments. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as far as the second question is concerned, there is no Law which mandates that issuance of a notice of demand in a suit of this nature is a condition precedent for maintainability of the suit.