Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Maimoona Begum vs G.Sarat Babu And Another on 2 December, 2015

Nuthalapati Munaswamy Naidu vs N.A.Chengamma Naidu And 8 Ors on 3 July, 2018

14C. From its combined reading as also answered by this Court in CCCA.No.128 of 2009 dated 02.12.2015 between Smt. Maimoona Begum v. G.Sarat Babu reported in 2016 (2) ALD 610, on the scope of Order XX Rule 5 read with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC particularly from Paras 7 & 8 of the judgment, a combined reading of these provisions make it abundantly clear on question of law regarding jurisdiction or other legal bar to a suit once required to be decided and if was decided holding lack of jurisdiction or for other legal bar to maintain the civil suit there is no need to deal with other issues for practically the Court therefrom becomes functus officio. In this regard there is no any inconsistency between the two provisions. It is to say at the cost of repetition that if the Court gives any finding on the preliminary issue of lack of jurisdiction or other legal bar inherently which goes to the root of the matter, Court cannot decide the lis on merits and consequently functus officio.
Telangana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Anjana Reddy vs Palvoi Ranga Reddy And 3 Others on 5 January, 2017

14(c). From its combined reading as also answered by this Court in CCCA.No.128 of 2009 dated 02.12.2015 between Smt. Maimoona Begum Vs. G.Sarat Babu on the scope of Order XX Rule 5 read with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC particularly from Paras 7 & 8 of the judgment, a combined reading of these provisions make it abundantly clear on question of law regarding jurisdiction or other legal bar to a suit once required to be decided and if was decided holding lack of jurisdiction or for other legal bar to maintain the civil suit there is no need to deal with other issues for practically the Court therefrom becomes functus officio. In this regard there is no any inconsistency between the two provisions. It is to say at the cost of repetition that if the Court gives any finding on the preliminary issue of lack of jurisdiction or other legal bar inherently which goes to the root of the matter, Court cannot decide the lis on merits and consequently functus officio.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - B S Rao - Full Document

Nuthalapati Munaswamy Naidu vs N.A.Chengama Naidu And Others on 3 July, 2018

14C. From its combined reading as also answered by this Court in CCCA.No.128 of 2009 dated 02.12.2015 between Smt. Maimoona Begum v. G.Sarat Babu reported in 2016 (2) ALD 610, on the scope of Order XX Rule 5 read with Order XIV Rule 2 CPC particularly from Paras 7 & 8 of the judgment, a combined reading of these provisions make it abundantly clear on question of law regarding jurisdiction or other legal bar to a suit once required to be decided and if was decided holding lack of jurisdiction or for other legal bar to maintain the civil suit there is no need to deal with other issues for practically the Court therefrom becomes functus officio. In this regard there is no any inconsistency between the two provisions. It is to say at the cost of repetition that if the Court gives any finding on the preliminary issue of lack of jurisdiction or other legal bar inherently which goes to the root of the matter, Court cannot decide the lis on merits and consequently functus officio.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B S Rao - Full Document
1