HAMARA TRANSPORT Vs. V U D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T. Veerabhadraiah, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Sumalini Reddy, Advocate-Standing Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the lower appellate Court is justified in remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal on the additional ground raised before the lower appellate Court by the defendant/appellant as to the competency and jurisdiction of the trial Court to proceed with the suit, which was not raised before the trial Court in the first instance when the written statement was filed.

(3.) A few facts are that the petitioner herein was plaintiff in O.S. 1446/1986 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam for mandatory injunction with a direction to the defendant to allot to the plaintiff the suit schedule site measuring about 1600 square yards. The plaintiff valued the relief and paid Court fee as per Section 26(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The right of the plaintiff was objected to by the defendant by filing written statement. It is proper to state here that no objection as to the competency or jurisdiction, either pecuniary or territorial, of the trial Court was taken by the defendant in his written statement. Accordingly, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-