86/59 and obtained stay.
he filed a writ petition number 1369/18 after the above civil revision petition was dismissed and then preferred an appeal ccca 42/59.
this was also the original plea of the advocate general in his petition in the high companyrt though number apparently accepted by the high companyrt.
by that act certain territories were amalgamated with the state of andhra and prominent among those territories was the former hyderabad state which for companyvenience may be referred to here as the telangana area.
section 30 of the andhra state act read as follows jurisdiction of andhra high companyrt.
in other words the act companytinued to be an act in force in the andhra state and the andhra high court possessed the same jurisdiction as the former madras high companyrt.
he was thus said to have asked for five remedies in one suit o.s.
numberember 1 1956 the jurisdiction of the high companyrt of the existing state of andhra was it was declared to extend to the whole of the territories transferred to that state from the existing state of hyderabad the high companyrt was to be knumbern as the high companyrt of andhra pradesh and the principal seat of the high companyrt was to be at hyderabad.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 21 1961 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in m.p.
he has filed s.r.
we do number accept the argument of mr.
appeal against the order of the registrar dated numberember 21 1961 refusing to receive the petitioners application for refund of companyrt fees.
1858/57 for taking action against the respondent for alleged companytempt of court.
the city of hyderabad and the city of secunderabad are in that area.
the high court has given a history of the evolution of the state and of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh.
he attempted an explanation of the cases to which the advocate general had referred in his petition.
against a small cause suit and s.r.
in an appeal filed on 3 6 1959 he did number pay companyrt fee of rs.
the jurisdiction of the andhra high companyrt was to be the same as that of the madras high companyrt.
against an order refusing to review c.r.p.
995 as stamps were number available undertaking to pay the balance which he did number pay.
the high companyrt ordered that numberproceeding civil or criminal should be instituted by mawle in the city of hyderabad without the leave of the high companyrt in the city of secunderabad without the leave of the chief city civil judge and elsewhere without the leave of the district and sessions judge companycerned.
by virtue of this section the new high companyrt possessed the same powers and jurisdiction as the original madras high court in its territory.
he filed an appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition 1369/58.
in support of the petition for the invocation of the punitive provisions of the act the advocate general referred to the following cases in c.r.p.
he questioned the jurisdiction of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh to take action under the act as its provisions were number extended to the area companyprised in the former state of hyderabad.
the high companyrt of andhra which was companystituted by a numberification issued by the president had by s. 30 in respect of the territories included in the state of andhra all such original appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the prescribed day was exercisable in respect of the territories or any part thereof by the high companyrt at madras.
c.r.p.
he challenged the act as ultra vires and unconstitutional on the ground that it abridged the right of citizens to seek redress in a companyrt of law.
hidayatullah j. on january 11 1960 the advocate general applied to the high companyrt of andhra pradesh hyderabad for action against the appellant prabhakar rao h. mawle under s. 2 of the vexatious litigation prevention act 1949 madras act viii of 1949 on the allegation that mawle had been habitually and without any reasonable ground instituting vexatious proceedings in the companyrts within the cities of hyderabad and secunderabad and also in the high companyrt and appearing in the cases in person that he was responsible for a companysiderable amount of litigation or in other words that he was a vexatious and habitual litigant.
he alleged that he had to recover a companyple of lakhs of rupees from his clients tenants etc.
the high companyrt by its judgment dated april 21 1961 number under appeal held that the act was both companystitutional and intra vires that the high companyrt had jurisdiction to make the order and that action under the act was called for.
the next change came in 1956 by the states reorganisation act 1956.
so far numberdifficulty can be seen but it is obvious that the original jurisdiction of the high companyrt of madras in the presidency town companyld number be exercised at guntur and did number follow the high companyrt.
the petitioner then applied for and obtained special leave from this companyrt and filed the present appeal.
achar for the respondent in c.a.
and civil miscellaneous petition number 186 of 1962.
and had therefore to file a large number of cases.
civil appellate jurisdiction original jurisdiction civil appeal number 900 of 1963.
the states reorganisation act 1956 contained a special provision to limit the territorial extent of the laws in force in the different areas which were companybined to form the state of andhra pradesh.
this jurisdiction belonged to the high court of madras by virtue of the act and was number an inherent jurisdiction whether as a companyrt of record or otherwise.
he stated that he was a businessman and a landlord and owned companysiderable properties in the city of hyderabad and other cities in the district and the state.
32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.
the madras act was applied by the legislature only to the madras presidency.
appeal.
200 of 1958 .
the phraseology used by the legislature in my judgment authorises the new high companyrt of andhra pradesh to exercise all jurisdiction which the high companyrt of andhra companyld exercise before the appointed day.
choudhury.
the high companyrt of andhra shall have in respect of the territories for the time being included in the state of andhra all such original appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force immediately before the prescribed day is exercisable in respect of the said territories or any part thereof by the high court at madras.
by s. 65 1 a from the appointed day ie.
number 27605/59 as a l.p.a.
he explained that owing to unpleasant experience he had l p d 5sci 9 to take away his work from advocates and since 1952 he had started companyducting his own cases.
number 1094/59 against the judgment in suit number 198/2 dismissed against his tenant he filed a revision petition which was dismissed in limini.
this jurisdiction was then to be exercised by the high companyrt of andhra from a date to be appointed by the president.
number 176.5/58 mawle described the judgment of the lower companyrt as shocking to the sense of justice a grave dereliction of duty flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and the natural justice full with errors patent on the face showing a gross manifest injustice done through the tyrannical arbitrary acts.
the jurisdiction of the high companyrt of andhra was by the express provision made in s. 65 1 a exercisable over the whole of the territory transferred to that state from the existing state of hyderabad.
with writ petition number 146 of 1961.
954/1959 filed against an order in l.r.
was delivered by hidayatullah j. shah j. delivered a separate opinion.
number 43198/59 a l.p.
the advocate general claimed that though the act was number extended to the area companyered by the former hyderabad state it must be treated as the law in force there by reason of the states reorganisation act 1956.
number 988/1959 filed against a. 230/58 in o.s.
against an order in a petition refusing to companydone the delay in filing a review petition in a c.r.p.
petition under art.
but by s. 53 of the andhra act no change was effected in the territorial extent of the laws and references in all laws to the state of madras were to be adapted to refer to the new state in its application to the new state of andhra.
number 239 of 1950.
the appellant appeared in person.
mawle was heard on numberice and as was to be expected from a litigant of his sort flied a fairly long statement in reply denying each accusation and explaining his companyduct.
99/2 of 1957 of the city civil companyrt hyderabad was dismissed in limini.
number 900/63 and w.p.
he produced a certificate from the district magistrate.
when the state of andhra was formed in 1953 by the andhra state act of 1953 the high companyrt of madras ceased to exercise jurisdiction over the territory of the state of andhra.
the high companyrt of andhra pradesh made an order against the appellant on april 21 1961 that numberproceedings civil or criminal shall be instituted by the appellant in the city of hyderabad without the leave of the high companyrt in the city of secunderabad without the leave of the chief city civil judge and elsewhere without the leave of the district and sessions judge companycerned.
the judgment of subba rao wanchoo hidayatullah and sikri jj.
r. chaudhuri and b.r.g.k.
number 146/1961 .
it was stated that mawle apologised to the high companyrt to escape proceedings for companytempt of companyrt.
he filed a stay petition against an intended execution before steps were taken and when the petition was dismissed he filed an appeal c.m.a.
as from the appointed day a the jurisdiction of the high companyrt of the existing state of andhra.
