MESSRS P H MAWLE AND SONS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question that arises for consideration in this reference is as to the true construction of section 6 (2) of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act (IV of 1958) which runs in the following terms:-

(2.) It is clear from the facts that the writ of certiorari is in respect of a proceeding pending in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The proceeding was started in 1952. The question that falls to be decided is whether the writ application does not arise out of proceedings pending in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. On the interpretation of the terms of section 79 (2) of Act VII of 1956, Kumarayya, J., in Syed Abdul Gafoor, In re. (1957)2 An. W.R. 349, held that as a writ application is in the nature of an original proceeding, the terms of section 79 (2) are not attracted. The relevant passages are in the following terms :

(3.) In S. R. No. 36460 of 1958, Lakkaraju Himachala Rao, In re. (1959)2 An. W.R. 330, I had to consider the applicability of section 79 (2) to a suit filed under Order 21, rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. While I agreed with the learned Judge that a writ application is in the nature of an original proceeding, I expressed the view that the expression 'otherwise' is of sufficiently wide import to cover writs filed in respect of the proceedings instituted' prior to the commencement of the Act. I am fortified in this conclusion by the Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Lokkaju Satyanarayana v. Majati Venkatarattamma, (1951)2 M.L.J. 477.