Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
V. Chandrasekhar Naidu vs E Muneendra on 18 June, 2026
1
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
APHC010287242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3562]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 684/2026
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to setaside the
order dated 08.05.2026 passed in W.P.No.14219 of 2026 insofar as it
directs maintenance of status quo with respect to mutation of names
concerning the subject land and pass
Between:
1. V. CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU,, S/O LATE V. RAMACHANDRA
NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O
D.NO.2-82, KOTHACHERLOPALLI, PUDIPATIA POST, TIRUPATI
RURAL MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. E MUNEENDRA, S/O. LATE NADHAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, OCC. LINEMAN, R/O. D.NO.4-14, MADIGAWADA,
KUNTRAPAKAM CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517561.
2. B NAGAMMA, W/O. SIDHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARUNDHATHI PURAM VILLAGE,
PERUMALLAPALLE MANDAL, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.
3. E NAGAMMA, W/O. VENKATA MUNI, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. MADIGAWADA,
KUNTRAPAKAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517561.
2
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
4. J CHANGLA RAYUDU, S/O. NADIPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ARUNDHATHI PURAM VILLAGE,
PERUMALLAPALLE MANDAL, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL
TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.
5. J NALLAIAH, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC.
SWEEPER NMR DAILY WAGE LABOUR WORKING AT SV
UNIVERSITY, R/O. ARUNDHATHI PURAM VILLAGE,
PERUMALLAPALLE MANDAL, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.
6. J NAGAIAH, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC.
SWEEPER NMR DAILY WAGE LABOUR WORKING AT SV
UNIVERSITY, R/O. ARUNDHATHI PURAM VILLAGE,
PERUMALLAPALLE MANDAL, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.
7. J SUDHAKAR, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC. GAS MECHANIC NMR DAILY WAGE LABOUR WORKING
AT SV UNIVERSITY, R/O. ARUNDHATHI PURAM VILLAGE,
PERUMALLAPALLE MANDAL, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL,
TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501
8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.
9. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION,
REP. BY IT COMMISSIONER APPEALS, O/O. 1ST AND 3RD
FLOORS, APICC BUILDING, AUTO NAGAR, NEAR NRI
HOSPITALS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503.
10. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-
517501.
11. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-
517501.
12. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI REVENUE
DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501.
13. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI
3
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
DISTRICT-517601.
...RESPONDENT(S):
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the
judgement and order dated 08.05.2026 passed in W.P. No. 14219 of
2026 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to suspend the judgment and order dated 08.05.2026
passed in W.P.No.14219 of 2026 and pass s
IA NO: 3 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased May be pleased to permit the Petitioner to bring these
subsequent facts on record and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. MAHESWARI ARIKA
The Court made the following:
4
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
JUDGMENT:
-(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant appearing through virtual mode, Ms. Maheswari Arika, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, and the learned
Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.8, 10, 12 & 13.
2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent
No.7 (in the writ petition), aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2026
passed in W.P.No.14219 of 2026, whereby the learned Single Judge
directed the parties to maintain status quo, as on the date of the order,
with regard to the subject land, with respect to the mutation of the names
of the parties concerned for the subject land.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein are the writ petitioners in
W.P.No.14219 of 2026. The appellant herein is respondent No.7 and
respondent Nos.8 to 13 herein are the official respondents.
4. The dispute between the appellant and the writ petitioners
pertains to the subject land i.e., to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in
Sy.No.243/3, situated at Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal,
Tirupati District (erstwhile Chittoor District).
5. The case of the writ petitioners was that the subject land was
assigned in favour of the writ petitioners’ grandfather and he remained in
5
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
possession and enjoyment thereof which was also so recorded in the
revenue records. The Urban Development Authority issued notice dated
27.02.1987 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
called for the objections and after submission of the objections, the
proceedings were withdrawn in the year 1987. It is their further case that
the petitioners’ grandfather nor his sons transferred the subject land to
anyone. However, respondent No.7 in writ petition claimed that his father
had purchased the land from the petitioners’ grandfather/his legal heirs.
Respondent No.6 in the writ petition passed the order of resumption on
16.08.1987 on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the
assignment which was challenged by the father of respondent No.7 in
writ petition No.12556 of 1999 which was disposed of with the direction to
the Tahsildar concerned to reconsider the issue with reference to Section
3(5) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. After
enquiry an order was passed in favour of the father of respondent No.7
on 13.11.1990 but after his death again the proposal for resumption of
the land was initiated on the ground that the land use was changed, into
non-agricultural, for the setting up a brick kiln. The order of resumption
was passed on 19.06.2006, which was challenged in appeal. The appeal
was allowed. The resumption order was set aside on 15.03.2008 by RDO
but this order was again set aside in revision on 30.10.2009 by the Joint
Collector, with direction to resume the land as per the Rules and to make
necessary changes in the revenue records. Respondent No.7 in writ
6
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
petition, filed W.P.No.26503 of 2009 which was allowed on 03.02.2020
by setting aside the order dated 30.10.2009. Challenging the order dated
03.02.2020 two writ appeal Nos.373 and 572 of 2021 were filed, which
were dismissed confirming the order passed in Writ Petition.
6. Petitioners further case is that respondent No.7 in writ
petition without approaching the competent civil court made
representation dated 19.05.2025 before the Joint Collector for deletion of
the land from prohibited properties list under Section 22A of the
Registration Act, 1908 for the land to the disputed extent, which was
allowed vide order dated 19.02.2026 deleting the land from the prohibited
property list. The writ petitioners’ case is that, the order dated 19.02.2026
was passed without notice to them. Challenging the order dated
19.02.2026, the writ petitioners filed appeal along with stay application on
15.04.2026 and the same is pending adjudication before the appellate
authority. Their further case is that in the meantime, the entry in revenue
records was changed to certain extent of an area, and the petitioners’
possession was being attempted to be disturbed by their
dispossession/eviction without following due process of law. So they filed
the writ petition for direction to the respondents in the writ petition not to
evict/dispossess the petitioners from the subject land pending the
statutory appeal.
7
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
7. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 08.05.2026,
disposed of the writ petition No.14219 of 2026, inter alia, directing the
appellate authority to consider and dispose of the statutory appeal strictly
in accordance with law, by hearing all the parties concerned and upon
verification of the record and the subject land within the period stipulated.
The operative part reads as under :
“6. In view of the above said facts and
circumstances, since the appeal is pending before the 2nd
respondent, it is just and necessary to dispose of the
same in accordance with law to meet the ends of justice.
For the said purpose, the 2nd respondent is directed to
consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioners dated
15.04.2026 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all
the parties concerned including the petitioners and the 7th
respondent herein, upon verification of the records and the
subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its
own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this
order. In the meanwhile, there shall be an order of status
quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the
mutation of the names of the parties concerned for the
subject land covered under the, said appeal.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There
shall be no order as to costs.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the
direction to the statutory appellate authority to dispose of the appeal is
8
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
concerned, the appellant has no grievance which is confined only to that
part of the order whereby the parties have been directed to maintain
status quo as on the date of the order, with regard to the mutation in
respect of the subject land. He submits that in the writ petition there was
no challenge on the point of mutation of entries and no relief was sought
in that regard. The only relief claimed in the writ petition was with respect
to the alleged possession and dispossession from the subject land during
the pendency of the statutory appeal before the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel submits that such a direction in the judgment under
appeal is beyond the scope of the relief sought in the writ petition. He
places reliance in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v.
Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra
Sangh1.
9. Learned counsel for the writ appellant/7th respondent in writ
petition further submits that the mutation of the name of the appellant had
already taken place in respect of an extent of Ac.1.65 cents out of the
total extent of Ac.2.48 cents of the subject land.
10. Learned counsel for the writ appellant further submits that
the appellant has already instituted O.S. No.47 of 2026 on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, against the writ
petitioners (defendants in the suit), in which, the learned Civil Judge, by
1
(2011) 6 SCC 597
9
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
order dated 21.04.2026, has granted an ad interim temporary injunction
to the effect, “accordingly ad-interim injunction is granted in favour
of the petitioner against the respondents from restraining them not
to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s over the
petition schedule property by dispensing the notice to them” which
also finds mention in paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment. If the
writ petitioners are aggrieved from the grant of the ad interim injunction,
they should take recourse to the remedy open to them under law.
11. Learned counsel for the write petitioners/respondent Nos.1
to 7 in writ appeal, submits that, pursuant to the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the statutory appeal is required
to be decided expeditiously so, the direction to maintain status quo with
respect to the mutation entries in the revenue records is justified and
calls for no interference.
12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 further submits
that respondent Nos.1 to 7 were not served with the notice of the suit
proceedings. The ad interim temporary injunction is ex parte. They came
to know about the said order in the course of the writ proceedings and
they are taking steps to enter appearance and take appropriate steps
before the learned trial Court in the suit proceedings. However, the writ
appellant is attempting to dispossess the writ petitioners from the subject
10
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
land and in such a case, irreparable injury would be caused to the
petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 7.
13. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the
learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
14. Insofar as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge
for expeditious disposal of the pending statutory appeal is concerned,
learned counsels for both the sides have no grievance.
15. The grievance of the writ appellant is with respect to the
direction to maintain status quo in relation to the mutation entries.
16. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant. The relief sought in the writ petition did not pertain to the
mutation entries in the revenue records, but was with respect to the
alleged attempt of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in writ petition to
dispossess the writ petitioners from the subject land, without following
due process of law.
17. The prayer in writ petition reads as under:
“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land to
an extent of Ac. 2.48 cents in No.243/3 of Cherlopalle Village,
Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, (erstwhile Chittoor District)
pending appeal dated 15.04.2026 before the 2nd Respondent as
11
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional against the principles of natural
justice and consequently direct the Respondents not
evict/dispossess the Petitioners from the land to an extent of Ac.
2.48 cents in Sy.No.243/3 of Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural
Mandal, Tirupati District, (erstwhile Chittoor District) pending appeal
dated 15.04.2026 before the 2nd Respondent and to pass…..”
18. The writ petition did not contain any prayer with respect to
the mutation entries. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 could
not dispute that there was any prayer in the writ petition with respect to
the mutation entries. In State of Himachal Pradesh (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph No.17, as follows:
“17. We have already adverted to the relief prayed for
by the respondent Association in the said writ petition.
Admittedly, there is no prayer for quashing of even
earlier Cabinet decision or order of the Government.
The conclusion of the High Court quashing the Cabinet
decision dated 18-7-2009 and as a consequence issuing
several directions is unacceptable and contrary to the well-
established principles. First of all, there was no prayer for
quashing of any decision of the State Government much
less the subsequent Cabinet decision dated 18-7-2009. If
the High Court was interested in going into the said
decision that too after reserving the judgment on 3-7-2009,
it is but appropriate to reopen the case, permit the petitioner
Association to amend the relief portion and afford adequate
opportunity to the State to put forth its stand for modifying
this “policy” curtailing certain courses under SCVT.
Admittedly, the High Court has not resorted to such a
recourse and simply quashed the decision of the
12
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)Cabinet dated 18-7-2009 and issued various
directions which are impermissible.”
19. The settled legal proposition, therefore, is that a Court ought
not to grant a relief which has not been prayed in the writ petition being
beyond the scope of the writ petition.
20. In Union of India V. E.I.D.Parry (India) Ltd., 2 , the
High Court on its own proceeded to consider the validity of the Rule and
ultimately held that it was not in consonance with the relevant provisions
of the Railways Act,1890 and consequently held that it was ultra vires.
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the view taken by the High Court was
contrary to the settled law that a question, which did not form part of the
pleadings or in respect of which the parties were not at variance and
which was not the subject matter of any issue, could not be decided by
the Court. It was further held that the High Court travelled beyond the
pleadings in declaring the Rule to be ultra vires. So, the judgment of the
High Court could not be sustained. The relevant portion of paragraph
No.4 reads as under :
“…..4. This view is contrary to the settled law that
a question, which did not form part of the pleadings or
in respect of which the parties were not at variance and
which was not the subject-matter of any issue, could
not be decided by the court. The scope of the suit was2
(2000) 2 SCC 223
13
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)limited. The pleadings comprising of the averments set
out in the plaint and the defence put up by the present
appellant in their written statement did not relate to
the validity of the rule struck down by the High
Court. The High Court, therefore, travelled beyond
the pleadings in declaring the rule to be ultra
vires. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, on this
question cannot be sustained.”
21. In State of Orissa and another V. Mamata
Mohanty3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the relief not claimed could
not have been granted. The relevant paragraph No.55 reads as under:
“Relief not claimed–cannot be granted
55. Pleadings and particulars are required to
enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the
trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in
narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the
parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the
parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said
issue. It is a settled legal proposition that “as a rule
relief not founded on the pleadings should not be
granted”. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be
based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties.
The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real
dispute between the parties to narrow the area of
conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. [Vide
Sri Mahant Govind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho [(1897-98) 253
(2011) 3 SCC 436
14
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)IA 195 (PC)] , Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar [(1953) 1
SCC 456 : AIR 1953 SC 235] , Ishwar Dutt v. Collector
(L.A.) [(2005) 7 SCC 190 : AIR 2005 SC 3165] and State
of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
[(2010) 4 SCC 518 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207] ]”
22. Recently in Divyagnakumari Harisinh Parmar and
Others V. Union of India and Others 4 the Hon’ble Apex Court
held that it is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted on a
case not found in the pleadings. The relevant paragraph No.18 reads as
under :
“18. In this regard, we place our reliance on the
well-entrenched principle of law that no relief can
be granted on a case not founded in the pleadings.
This Court cannot entertain an entirely new case at the
appellate stage at the behest of either party and is
strictly confined to adjudicate the issues arising from the
suit as framed by the pleadings of the parties.”
23. We find that the writ petition did not contain any prayer
relating to the mutation entries nor a prayer for maintaining status quo
with respect to the mutation entries pending disposal of the statutory
appeal.
4
2025 SCC Online 2064
15
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
24. Consequently, we are of the view that the part of the
judgment pertaining to the directions issued by the learned single Judge
to maintain status quo in respect of the mutation entries cannot be
legally sustained. The same is accordingly, set aside to that extent.
25. However that is not the end of the matter. The fact remains
that the prayer made in the writ petition has not been considered,
regarding threat of alleged dispossession by not following the due
process of law, in correct perspective.
26. The question as to which of the parties is in possession of
the subject property and whether there is any attempt for illegal
dispossession are matters which are directly in issue in the pending civil
suit. It is not in dispute that the competent Civil Court has already granted
an ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants therein,
(the present respondents 1 to 7), and that notice has also been issued in
the suit proceedings. Once the dispute is in the civil suit, the parties are
required to work out their remedies before the learned trial Court. If the
respondents 1 to 7 (writ petitioners) are aggrieved by the ad interim order
of injunction or they intend to seek any further interim protection, it is
open to them to approach the learned trial Court by filing an appropriate
application in the suit or/and to institute the suit; whichever remedy may
be available and as may be advised to them.
16
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
27. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ
petitioners had no knowledge of the ad interim temporary injunction
order passed in the suit, while filing the writ petition. Learned counsel for
the writ appellant disputes and contends that they had the knowledge.
We refrain from expressing any views on the said disputed question of
fact.
28. Having regard to the submission advanced by the writ
petitioners’ counsel that there exists an imminent threat of dispossession
of the writ petitioners, and further considering their contention that
ad interim temporary injunction was granted in the pending civil suit
ex parte and as the writ petitioners are now taking appropriate steps to
enter appearance in the suit, we deem it appropriate to protect their
interest for a limited period on the principle that no one can be
dispossessed except by following due process of law.
29. We make it clear that we have not observed nor be
understood as observing about the possession or/and alleged attempt of
dispossession not by due process of law, in favour of or against any of
the parties.
30. Accordingly, the writ petitioners shall be at liberty to
approach the learned trial Court in an appropriate proceedings within a
period of three (03) weeks from today. For the aforesaid period, if the writ
17
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
petitioners are in possession of the subject property, they shall not be
dispossessed except by due process of law.
31. It is further made clear that this order shall not preclude the
learned trial Court from considering and passing appropriate orders on
the applications strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
32. The statutory appellate authority shall also proceed and
dispose of the pending statutory appeal expeditiously, in terms of the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal.
33. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Appeal
is allowed in part.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall also stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
______________________
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
Date :18.06.2026.
Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o
RPD.
18
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
73
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
(ALLOWED IN PART)
WRIT APPEAL NO: 684 OF 2026
Date: 18.06.2026
Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o
RPD.
19
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
+ WRIT APPEAL NO: 684 OF 2026
% 18.06.2026.
# V.Chandrasekhar Naidu
……Appellant
And:
$ 1. E.Muneendra and 12 others
….Respondents.
!Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar
^Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Maheswari Arika
: Government Pleader for Revenue<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2011) 6 SCC 597
2. (2000) 2 SCC 223
3. (2011) 3 SCC 436
4. 2025 SCC Online 2064
20
(RNT,J & SS,J
W.A. NO.684 OF 2026)HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
WRIT APPEAL NO: 684 OF 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.06.2026.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
______________________
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J
