Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Naraganti Ramakrishnaiah Died vs P.Nalini on 18 July, 2025
APHC010483382023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 469 OF 2023
Between:
1. Naraganti Ramakrishnaiah Died, S/o Late N.Munaswamy Chetty, aged
about 74 years, Occ- Agriculturist, R/o Guravaraju Palli village, Renigunta
Mandal, Tirupathi District.
2. Naraganti Saraswathamma, W/o Late N.Venkatamuni Chetty, aged about
74 years, Occ- House wife R/o R/o Guravaraju Palli village, Renigunta
Mandal, Tirupathi District.
3. Tenepalli Sankaraiah, S/o Ramachandraiah, aged about 59 years, Occ-
Advocate R/o D.no.18-2-187/A, Ashok Nagar, Tirupathi town and District.
4. Tenepalli Ramachandraiah, S/o Late Veeraswamy Chetty, aged about 89
years, Occ- Agriculturist, R/o Guravaraju Palli village, Renigunta Mandal,
Tirupathi District.
5. Naraganti Malleswaramma,, W/o Late Naraganti Ramakrishnaiah, Aged
about 65 years, R/o Guravaraju Palli, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.
6. N. Munikrishnaiah,, S/o Late Naraganti Ramakrishnaiah, Aged about 37
years, R/o Guravaraju Palli, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.
7. K. Vijayalakshmi,, W/o Venugopal, Aged about 45 years, R/o Guravaraju
Palli, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.
8. K. Jyothi,, W/o Ramakrishna, Aged about 42 years, R/o Guravaraju Palli,
Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District.
9. J. Neeraja,, W/o Chandrasekar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Guravaraju Palli,
Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District. (As per the Court order dated
04.07.2025, appellant Nos. 5 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased appellant No.1, vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 in S.A.No.469 of 2023)
...Petitioners
AND
1. P Nalini, W/o Late Kannaiah Naidu, aged about 45 years, R/o D.No.12/25B,
Bugga Street, Renigunta town and Mandal, Tirupathi District.
...Respondent
Appeal under section ___________ against ordersMemorandum of
Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.20 of
2018 dated 13-4-2018 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati,
Chittoor District Confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.511 of 2009
dated 25-10-2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi,
Chittoor District
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 stay the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.20 of 2018 dated
13-4-2023 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor
District Confirming the Judgment and Decree in 0.S.No. 511 of 2009 dated 25-
10-2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor
District
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 stay the EP 90 of 2023 in A.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati pending disposal of the above second
appeal and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 condone the delay of 378 days in filing the LR application in the
above second appeal SA No. 469 of 2023 and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1st
appellant in bringing the Legal Representatives in the above second appeal
SA No. 469 of 2023 and pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2025
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 bring the proposed appellants no. 5 to 9 as legal heirs of deceased
1st appellant as appellants no. 5 to 9 in the above second appeal SA No. 469
of 2023 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioners: P GANGA RAMI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent S PRANATHI
The Court made the following order:
Judgment:
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree
dated 13-4-2023 in A.S.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District
Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, confirming the judgment and decree dated
25-10-2017 in O.S.No.511 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Tirupati.
2. The appellants herein are defendants 1 to 4 and the respondent is
plaintiff in O.S.No.511 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Tirupati.
3. During the pendency of the second appeal, the 1st appellant/
1st defendant died and as per Court order dated 04-7-2025, the appellants 5 to
9 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 1st appellant,
vide I.A.No.3/2025.
4. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.511 of 2009 on the file of the
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for declaration to declare the title of the
plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, directing the defendants to deliver
vacant possession of the same and for costs of the suit.
5. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, decreed the suit
with costs, declaring the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property
and directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the same to the
plaintiff within three months from the date of that judgment, failing which the
plaintiff is entitled to take delivery through process of the Court. Felt
aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit
filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned
V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissed the first appeal by confirming
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the
unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by way of second
appeal.
6. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will
be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
7. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in
O.S.No.511 of 2009, is as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that plaint schedule property in Survey Nos.77 and 77/1
of Guravarajupalli Village out of an extent of Ac.13-25 cents originally
belonged to one Naraganti Munaswamy Setty. The 1st defendant is the son of
late Munaswamy Setty and the 2nd defendant is daughter-in-law and sister-in-
law of the 1st defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 formed a layout in the name
of Sri Venkateswara Colony, Guravarajupalli, towards south of Renigunta-
Srikalahasthi road. After forming the layout, they started Lucky Dip Scheme
by appointing the defendants 3 and 4 as their agents to canvass and collect
amounts from prospective purchasers of house plots and also members of the
scheme. As per the scheme, the members have to pay monthly installments
for the plots and whoever was successful in draw, the successful person need
not pay further installments and a regular registered sale deed would be
executed in his favour. Accordingly, they issued printed cards in token of
receipt of the amounts.
(b) It is further pleaded that the plaintiff's husband Paritala Kannaiah
joined the scheme after confirmation from the defendants 1 and 2 that the
defendants 3 and 4 are their agents. The defendants also showed the layout
formed in the said Survey numbers where they laid mud roads and stones for
house plots. The plaintiff's husband Paritala Kannaiah became successor and
obtained sale deed on 25-7-1994 for Plot No.17 i.e. plaint schedule property
and obtained possession of the same. The 2nd defendant executed
a registered General Power of Attorney dated 16-9-1993 in favour of the
1st defendant authorizing him to act as an agent on her behalf. Hence, the
1st defendant, on his behalf and on behalf of the 2nd defendant, delivered
possession of the plaint schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff's husband
Paritala Kannaiah got possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of
registered sale deed. The said Paritala Kannaiah died on 18-4-2004 leaving
behind the plaintiff as his legal heir to succeed his estate. Thus, the plaintiff
became absolute owner of the plaint schedule property.
(c) It is further pleaded that the defendants illegally and unlawfully
trespassed into the plaint schedule property and removed the boundary
stones. The plaintiff got the land surveyed by a retired Surveyor on 04-4-2009
and also fixed up boundary stones. On the same day evening, the plaintiff
and other plot owners came to know that in their absence, the defendants
1 and 2 with the support of the defendants 3 and 4, who are also close
relatives of the defendants 1 and 2, removed the survey stones. Then, the
plaintiff and others jointly gave a paper publication and issued a legal notice
on 29-4-2009 to the defendants. The defendants having received the notice,
did not give any reply. Further, the defendants 3 and 4 approached the
plaintiff and others and attempted to settle the issue by offering meager
amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.
8. The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the
2nd defendant, denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended
as follows:
(a) It is denied that Munaswamy Setty is absolute owner of the land in
Survey No.77/1 in an extent of Ac.13-25 cents of Guravarajupalle Village. It is
contended that he died intestate leaving behind him, his wife, three sons and
five daughters and after his death, all his three sons were living jointly and one
of his sons Venkatamuni Chetty was managing the affairs of joint family till his
death in the year 1987 leaving behind the 2nd defendant and three daughters.
Later, the 1st defendant was managing the affairs of joint family and they did
not partition their properties and they are living jointly. All the five daughters of
Munaswamy Setty have got equal share in the properties along with his sons.
As on that day, the agricultural lands were not converted into house plots.
The 1st defendant and others sons of Munaswamy Setty got equal rights in the
plaint schedule property. Some extent of the land was sold to others under
various registered sale deeds in or about 1990.
(b) It is further contended that an extent of Ac.3-31 cents of land was
acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming a road to the Airport in
the year 2002 out of the land in Survey No.77/1 and the Government
paid compensation to one Bhaktavatsalam and others under an award.
The 1st defendant's son viz., Munikrishnaiah filed the suit in O.S.No.48 of
2009 on the file of VI Additional District Court, Tirupati, for partition of family
properties against the defendants 1 and 2 and others and the said suit is
pending. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. The 3rd defendant filed separate written statement, which was
adopted by the 4th defendant, admitting that after receiving legal notice by plot
owners jointly on 29-4-2009 to the defendants, the plaintiff approached the
defendants and mediation was also held and as such, they could not give any
reply to the said notice. It is contended that he is unnecessarily added as
party to the suit and he is nothing to do either with the ownership of property
or execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff
and hence, he is unnecessary party to the suit and he is impleaded with
an ulterior motive to obtain wrongful gain. There is no cause of action against
the defendants 3 and 4. Further, the plaintiff did not seek any relief against
them and the plaintiff is also stranger to them and on this ground, the suit is
liable to be dismissed against them with exemplary costs. It is further
contended that the suit is barred by limitation and they prayed to dismiss the
suit.
10. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Tirupati, framed the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of suit schedule
property as prayed for ?
(2) Whether the defendants are liable to deliver the vacant possession
of the suit schedule property ?
(3) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 have exclusive right over the
schedule mentioned property ?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? and
(5) To what relief ?
11. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,
P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked. On behalf of
the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were
marked.
12. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, after conclusion
of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral
and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt
aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants filed the appeal suit in
A.S.No.20 of 2018 before the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati,
wherein, the following point came up for consideration:
Whether the respondent/plaintiff was prospective purchaser of plot
sold by defendants 1 and 2 by propagating through defendants 3 and
4 and that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are
factually and legally sustainable or not ?
13. The learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, i.e., the first
appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above,
against the defendants/appellants and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and
dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendants. Felt aggrieved of the same,
the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.511 of 2009 filed the present second
appeal before this Court.
14. After the institution of second appeal by the defendants in the suit,
this Court ordered notice to the respondent before admission and the said
notice was served on the respondent/plaintiff. Heard Sri P. Gangarami
Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri M. Rahul,
learned counsel, on behalf of Smt. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff.
15. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural
nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance
with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies the Court that
substantial question of law between the parties arise in the case. A proper
test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties
and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally
settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for
discussion of alternative views. In the case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v.
Arigela Laxmi1, the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the
High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by
the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from
a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn
by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in
a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where,
the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should
not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in
second appeal. Mere appreciation of facts, documentary evidence and
contents of documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of
law.
16. The defendants having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for them to meet the
above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial
question of law.
17. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived
by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal
are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellants have shown any
substantial question of law. The contention of appellants is that the judgment
and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to
law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court
and the first appellate Court.
1
(2007) 8 SCC 155
18. The undisputed facts of both the parties are that the plaint schedule
property in Survey Nos.77 and 77/1 of Guravarajupalli Village out of an extent
of Ac.13.25 cents originally belongs to Naraganti Munaswamy Setty and
he died intestate. The 1st defendant is the son of late Naraganti Munaswamy
Setty and the 2nd defendant is the daughter-in-law and sister-in-law of the
1st defendant. The plaint schedule property is Plot No.17, situated in Survey
No.77 in an extent of 240 square yards. The relationship in between the
defendants 1 and 2 is not at all disputed by the defendants. The specific case
of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 and 2 formed a layout in the name of
Sri Venkateswara Colony, Guravarajupalli Village, towards south of
Renigunta-Srikalahasthi road. After forming the layout, they started Lucky Dip
Scheme by appointing the defendants 3 and 4 as their agents to canvass and
collect amounts from prospective purchasers of the house plots and also the
members of the scheme. It is also further specific case of the plaintiff that as
per the said scheme, the members have to pay monthly instalments for the
plots and whoever was successful in the draw, the successful person need not
pay further instalments and a regular registered sale deed would be executed
in his favour and they also issued printed cards in token of receipt of the
amounts.
19. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and the 2nd defendant
adopted the same. They pleaded in the written statement by admitting that
Munaswamy Setty is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and
he died intestate leaving behind his wife, three sisters and five daughters and
they are living jointly and all are having equal shares in the plaint schedule
property. The execution of registered General Power of Attorney in favour of
the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant, as if she had ownership over Ac.2-00
of land by authorizing the 1st defendant to sell the plaint schedule property is
not at all disputed either by 1st defendant or 2nd defendant. The execution of
Ex.A-1 registered sale deed by the 1st defendant himself and as a Power of
Attorney Holder on behalf of the 2nd defendant is undisputed by the
defendants 1 and 2.
20. The plaintiff herein filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery
of possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff produced original
registered sale deed dated 25-7-1994. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A-5
Award in Award No.54/2002 relating to acquisition of land to an extent of
Ac.3-31 cents in Survey No.77/1B2 in the name of N. Bhakthavatsalam,
N. Vidyadhar and N. Bhargava Ramana. In Ex.A-5, it is narrated that
N. Vidyadhar and N. Bhargava Ramana got Ac.1-00 of land each through
settlement deed dated 20-5-1998. The same are exhibited as Exs.A-6 and
A-7. It also goes to show that N. Bhargava Ramana got Ac.2-00 in Survey
No.77/1E and he got the above property from his father and it was recited in
the document that an extent of Ac.1-31 cents belongs to him. It is also
reiterated in the said document that some extent in Survey No.77 was sold for
the purpose of house sites. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of evidence of
P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 and A-3 to A-11, it is quite clear that the 1st defendant and
his two brothers were exercising independent rights over the property and the
plaint schedule property with some other property fallen to their share.
The defendants 1 and 2 laid plots in the property fell to their share. It is also
further quite clear that the defendants 1 and 2 started Lucky Dip Scheme by
appointing the defendants 3 and 4 as their agents to canvass and collect
amounts from prospective purchasers of house plots and also the members of
the scheme. Ex.A-4 also supports the same. It was specifically contended by
the 3rd defendant that he is no way connected to this case and he is
unnecessarily shown as a party. In fact, the 3rd defendant has taken two
stands, on the one hand, he stated that he is no way connected with the
subject matter of the suit and on the other hand, he supported the defendants
1 and 2 in all other aspects. The 4th defendant is none other than the
3rd defendant's father. Either the 1st defendant or the 4th defendant did not
enter into the witness-box. The 1st defendant on his behalf and on behalf of
the 2nd defendant as a registered General Power of Attorney Holder, executed
the original registered sale deed under Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff's
husband and subsequently, the plaintiff's husband died and the right and title
in the plaint schedule property is exercising by the plaintiff as deceased
husband's wife. The 1st defendant did not enter into the witness-box to deny
Ex.A-1 registered sale deed. The 4th defendant also did not enter into the
witness-box to show that he is no way connected to the suit transaction.
Neither the 3rd defendant nor the 4th defendant did take any steps to prove the
disputed signatures on Ex.A-4 printed card and bunch of receipts.
21. The learned counsel for respondent would contend that the
defendants 3 and 4 are family members of defendants 1 and 2 and altogether
formed a Lucky Dip Scheme and the 3rd defendant collected amounts from the
subscribers and passed receipts under Ex.A-4 and signed by the
3rd defendant on all those receipts and those are marked as Ex.A-4.
The 4th defendant signed the same as an agent on the receipts attached the
printed card of Ex.A-4 and the defendants 3 and 4 signed on some receipts
and others also signed on some receipts. It is also clear that Ex.A-4 was
confronted to the 3rd defendant/D.W.2. He denied his signatures and the
signatures of his father on the receipts attached to Ex.A-4, but they did not
take any steps to prove that Ex.A-4 does not contain their signatures.
Furthermore, the 3rd defendant also admitted about filing of the case by one
Rajendra Prasad against him and others and the same is also pending.
22. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that in fact, the
defendants 3 and 4 are no way connected to this case, though a specific
defence has been taken by the appellant/3rd defendant, no finding was given
on the said aspect by the learned first appellate Judge. The learned counsel
for appellants placed reliance on Laliteshwar Prasad Singh v. S.P.
Srivastava (Dead) Through LRs2. In the said case, the Apex Court held as
follows:
"12. ... ... ... It is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the
points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision.
However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for
determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court
provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence
adduced by both the parties."
In the case of Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin3, the Apex Court held as
follows:
"Order XLI, Rule 30 of C.P.C does not make it incumbent on the Appellate
Court to refer to any part of the proceedings in the court from whose decree
the appeal is preferred. The Appellate Court can refer, after hearing the
parties and their pleaders, to any part of these proceedings to which
reference be considered necessary. It is in the discretion of the Appellate
Court to refer to the proceedings. It is competent to pronounce judgment
after hearing what the parties or their pleaders submit to it for consideration.
It follows therefore that if the appellant submits nothing for its consideration,
the Appellate Court can decide the appeal without any reference to any
proceedings of the courts below and, in doing so, it can simply say that the
appellants have not urged anything which would tend to show that the
judgment and decree under appeal were wrong."
23. The plaintiff substantially pleaded in the plaint and also in the
evidence that how the defendants 3 and 4 are connected to the suit
transaction by proving Ex.A-4 printed card and bunch of receipts signed by the
defendants 3 and 4. By giving cogent reasons, both the trial Court and the
first appellate Court disbelieved the defence of the defendants 3 and 4 that
they are no way connected to the suit proceedings.
24. The execution of sale deed under Ex.A-1 is not at all disputed by the
defendants 1 and 2. In the present case, the plaintiff is having valid title under
2
(2017) 2 SCC 415
3
2025 SCC Online 826
the registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property and the
registered sale deed is not legally cancelled. Unless and until the said
registered sale deed is legally cancelled, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession of the plaint schedule property. The law is well settled in a catena
of decisions of various High Courts in which it has been held that even if the
whole of the price is not paid, the transaction of sale will take effect and title
would pass under that transaction.
25. It is also equally well settled that non-payment of a portion of the
sale price would not affect validity of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is
not paid, but the document is executed and thereafter registered, the sale
would be complete and title would be on the transferee under the transaction.
In the case on hand, admittedly, no plea is taken by the defendants 1 and 2
that the registered sale deed was executed without passing any consideration.
26. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that both the
Courts below came to right conclusion that the plaintiff is having right and title
in the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of
recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and a decree was
passed against all the defendants. The aforesaid findings, in my considered
view, remain unimpeachable from the evidence led by the parties.
27. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that
the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the
issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants do not brook
interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were
based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and
there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the
findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial
question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court
as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly
speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions
of law.
28. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission, confirming the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own
costs in the second appeal.
REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
2. One CC to SRI. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRI. S PRANATHI Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:18/07/2025
ORDER
SA NO. 469 OF 2023