REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PEYYETI JAGANNADHA RAO Appellant

V/S

PAMARTI VENKATESWARA RAO Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KRISHNAMMAL V. KRISHNA LYENGAR [REFERRED TO]
SHELL CO.,OF AUSTRALIA LTD. V. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATTAR V. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,VIZAGAPATAM [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR V. KANNAPPAR [REFERRED TO]
MANAVALA GOUNDAN V. KUMARAPPA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
UMA CHARAN MANDAL V. MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARY CO.,LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH OF VENKATAGIN V. SHAIK MAHABOOB SAHEB [REFERRED TO]
MANDASA V. JAGANNAYAKULU [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BANK LIMITED DELHI VS. EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
PHUL KUMARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JAGABANDHU DAS VS. BABAJI JENA [REFERRED TO]
KALAVAGUNTA SRIRAMARAO VS. KALAVAGUNTA SURYANARAYANAMURTHI [REFERRED TO]
C.ABBOY REDDIAR VS. COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT AT SAIDAPET [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these Civil revision petitions, a preliminary objection is raised as to whether an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar under Section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy, Act (XVIII of 1956) is liable to be revised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

(2.) It is necessary for us to state the facts that have given rise to these revisions having regard to the nature of the present enquiry. The point that calls for determination depends upon whether the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer adjudicating disputes under this Act constitute Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court within the purview of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Since the problem has to be tackled with reference to Section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, it is useful to read it here :

Click here to view full judgment.

PEYYETI JAGANNADHA RAO Vs. PAMARTI VENKATESWARA RAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address