1998 Supreme(SC) 1192

1998(9) Supreme 189
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State Bank of India -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6060 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10738 of 1998)
Decided on 2-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Bhimrao N. Naik, Sr. Advocate, Pallav Sisodia, (D.N. Mishra), Advocate for Manik Karanjawala, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Rafique Dada, Sr. Advocate, Chirag Balsara, Jaideep Verma, R.N. Karanjuwala, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Yasmin Godrej, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.

Important points
1. Jurisdiction exercised by the Chief of the Small Causes Court under Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction.
2. Against an appellate decision rendered by the High Court under Section 218D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable, appeal under Section 218D being in the nature of second appeal.

Headnote:(i) Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Section 217-­Appeal against rateable value/tax fixed-Nature of proceedings before Chief Judge of Small Causes-Jurisdiction exercised by Chief Judge of Small Causes is appellate jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction.

       (ii) Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Sections 217 and 218D-CPC, Section 100A-Appeal to High Court-Letters Patent Appeal against Single Judge’s decision-Not maintainable-Appeal to High Court under Section 218D is second appeal-Against decision in second appeal no further appeal under Letters Patent not maintainable in view of Section 100A of CPC.

       Held : The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is a complete Code and contains provision for filing appeal etc. against order made under the Act, Section 217(1). A bare reading of Section 217(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corpora­tion Act, 1888 shows that the jurisdiction exercised by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court is appellate jurisdiction.

       7. Section 218 provides for the period when the cause of complaint can be said to have accrued for filing of an appeal under Section 217 of the Act. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the proceedings under Section 217(1) are “original proceedings” in the first forum. The proceedings are appellate proceedings in a second forum and not original proceedings in a first forum. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)

       According to Section 218 D, an appeal shall also lie to the High Court from any decision of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court in an appeal under Section 217, ‘upon a question of law or usage having the force of law or the construction of a document’. That the respondent had taken recourse to Section 218 D(1) in filing an appeal against the appellate order of the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court is not in dispute. The appellant has not ques­tioned the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 218 D of the Act before the learned single Judge of the High Court before us. Thus, it is obvious that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 218 D of the Act was a second appeal against the appellate order made by the Addl. Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. Under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, no further appeal has been provided against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court deciding the second appeal under Section 218 D of the Act against an appellate order of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court passed under Section 217(1) of the Act. Section 100 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was introduced by the Amendment Act, 1976, specifically bars any further appeal in such cases. This section has been introduced to minimise the delay in the finality of a decision. Prior to the enactment of the above provision, under the Letters Patent, an appeal against the decision of a single Judge in a second appeal was, in certain cases, held competent, though under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was some inhi­bition against interference with the findings of fact. The right of taking recourse to such an appeal has now been taken away by Section 100 A of the Code of Civil Procedure (supra). Since, an appeal under Section 217(1) of the Act is a first appeal in a second forum/court and an appeal under Section 218 D of the Act is the second appeal in the third forum/ court, no further appeal would be competent before the fourth/court in view of Section 100 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Paras 9 and 10)

       In the instant case, since an appeal from the appellate order was heard and decided by a learned single Judge of the High Court, no further appeal was maintainable from the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in that appeal. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court under the circumstances suffers from no error. (Para 11)