Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs A M Krishna on 28 November, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Writ Appeal No.241 of 2023
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Stamps and
Registration Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, A.P. & others.
... Appellants
Versus
Dr. A. M. Krishna, S/o Late A. Rama
Chandra Naidu, Aged 63 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o 19-4-4C2, K.R.R. Colony,
Old D.R.Mahal Road, Tirupati Urban Post &
Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.& others.
...Respondents
Government Pleader for Assignment, Counsel for Appellant Nos.1 to
5.
Mr. A.M. Krishna, Party-in-person for respondent No.1.
Dt.:28.11.2023
PER JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against
an order, dated 02.03.2022, whereby the Review Petition filed by
the petitioners seeking a review of the judgment and order
rendered in W.P. No.19838 of 2019, was dismissed.
2 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.241 _2023
2. It is no longer res integra that an Appeal preferred
against an order dismissing the Review Petition is not maintainable
in terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A full bench of the
composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.F. Pushpaleela Devi v.
State of A.P. [2002 (5) ALD 1] has held clearly that clause 15 of the
Letters Patent conferred a right to prefer an appeal against a
judgment and further that an order would become appealable only
if it satisfied the requirements of being a judgment within the
meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which would
necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and on the nature and character of the order passed. The full Bench
held:
"60. ...............
In our opinion the judgment within the meaning of Clause
15 of the Letters Patent would have to satisfy two tests. First, the
judgment must be the final pronouncement which puts an end to
the proceedings as far as the court dealing with it is concerned.
Secondly, the judgment must involve the determination of some
right or liability though it may not be necessary that there must be
a decision merits. The nature of the order will have to be examined
in order to ascertain whether there has been a determination of
any right or liability. Since there is no definition of the word
judgment in the letters patent itself, the expression has
necessarily to be construed and interpreted in each case. It is,
however, safe to say that if any order has the effect of finally
determining any controversy forming the subject-matter of the
3 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.241 _2023
suit itself or any part thereof or the same affects the question of
Court's jurisdiction or the question of limitation, such an order will
normally constitute 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of
the Letters Patent.
........"
2.1 The full Bench finally went on to hold that in dismissing
the Review Petition, no valuable rights of the parties are decided or
re-determined and therefore the order would not amount to a
"judgment".
3. Be that as it may, following the ratio in the
aforementioned judgment rendered in the case of B.F. Pushpaleela
Devi (supra), we hold that the Letters Patent Appeal against the
order dismissing the Review Petition is not maintainable and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
AKN
4 HCJ & RRR,J
WA.No.241 _2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt:28.11.2023
AKN
