LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label rule 9. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule 9. Show all posts
Saturday, November 3, 2012

when the advocate has not issued any notice to the parties, and therefore, the reporting of no instructions is not proper. It is a matter of communication between the appellant and his advocate. There is no substantial question of law which is to be decided by this Court since the appeal was only dismissed for default as consequence of reporting of no instructions by the advocate. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. If at all the appellant is advised, the appellant can move application for restoration of the appeal before the Court below.

›
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO S.A.No.136 of 2012 JUDGMENT:             This Second Appeal is sought to be file...
Saturday, October 13, 2012

The O.P. is filed under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 before the trial Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to furnish correct audited accounts of respondent No.1 society from the period of their taking charge, convene the general body meeting and to conduct the elections, and if finds any misappropriation, respondents 2 and 3 may be directed to make good of the amounts by depositing the same with interest in the account of respondent No.1- society. However, the O.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present I.A. under Order IX, Rule 9, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for restoration of the O.P. - So far as the observation of the trial Court at the interlocutory stage that the main O.P. has become infructuous is concerned, the trial Court while coming to the conclusion that there are no merits in the restoration application, appears to have observed that the O.P. has become infructuous by relying on some authentic information that general body meeting was conducted, elections were held and respondents 2 and 3 had placed the accounts before the general body meeting in respect of respondent No.1 society. Therefore, this Court does not find fault with the observation of the trial Court.

›
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA       C.M. A. No.54 OF 2012 04.10.2012     1)Musam Hari Prasad, 2) Ravirala Mallaiah 1) Pat...