LAWS(APH)-2017-9-61

PUSAPATI MADHURI GAJAPATHI RAJU Vs. PUSAPATI ANANDA GAJAPATHI RAJU, (DIED), PER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

Decided On September 22, 2017
Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju Appellant
V/S
Pusapati Ananda Gajapathi Raju, (Died), Per Legal Representatives And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against order and decree dt.24.06.2013 in Arbitration O.P. No.631 of 2007 on the file fo the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram.

(2.) The facts to the extent they are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of these appeals are stated hereunder.

(3.) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.S. No.29 of 1974 in the Sub-Court, Vizianagaram, for division by metes and bounds of the properties mentioned in schedules I to VIII of the plaint, as per the shares specified therein. The suit was partly decreed and the properties specified in the award were ordered to be partitioned by metes and bounds. A preliminary decree was drawn up in respect of the specified items and the suit for the rest of the items was dismissed. Feeling partly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed A.S. No.283 of 1980 before this Court. By judgment dt.24.07.1992 this Court has dismissed the appeal while allowing the cross-objections in part, with respect to scheduleI properties. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed Civil Appeal No.5251 of 1993 before the Supreme Court. On 14.09.1995, Dr. P.V.G. Raju died. On 08.03.2000 all the parties jointly filed an application before the Supreme Court to refer the disputes for arbitration. A former Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice S. Ranganathan, was appointed as the Arbitrator by order dt.28.03.2000, of the Supreme Court. A claim petition was filed before the Arbitrator on 16.09.2000. On 26.05.2007 the Arbitrator made an interim award. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed Arbitration O.P. No.631 of 2007 in the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram. The said O.P. was dismissed by order dt.24.06.2013. Assailing this order, C.M.A. No.1057 of 2013 is filed. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed C.M.A. (SR) No.27224 of 2015 with a delay of 641 days against the said order.