MANDAVA NIRMALA Vs. VELLANKI VIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel representing the appellant and. Sri Guna Ranjan, learned Counsel representing the respondents,

(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order of remand made in AS No. 141 of 1997 on the file of II Additional. District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, dated 16-7-2002.

(3.) Ms. Annapurna Devi, learned Counsel representing the appellant had pointed out to the relevant portions of toe findings recorded by the appellate Court and would comment that the main ground on which the remand was made is that the Report of the Commissioner was not filed before the Court of first instance, The learned Counsel would point out that this is not a correct finding since on a perusal of paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Court of first instance it is clear that the Report ef the Commissioner, in fact, was filed and certain, findings had been recorded in relation thereto. The Counsel also would maintain that the order of remand cannot be made in such a fashion and in a casual manner and even otherwise the other ground that proper opportunity also had not been given, and in the facts and circumstances it is not a sustainable ground. She further contended that the only attempt which is being made by the respondents is to fill up the lacunae which cannot be permitted. The Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Boppa Siva Basavayya v. Indukuri Venkataramaraju, 1967 An.WR 392.