Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Mawasi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Tej Ram Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal under code of civil procedure (Para 1) |
| 2. rca not maintainable under section 6 of specific relief act (Para 2) |
| 3. merits dismissed despite jurisdiction issue (Para 3) |
| 4. first appellate court cannot pass orders if not maintainable (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 5. question of law answered in favor of appellant (Para 7) |
| 6. impugned judgment quashed; appeal allowed (Para 8 , 9) |
1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging an order dated 20th July, 2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in RCA 20172/2016, which was filed by the appellant challenging a judgment dated 15th July, 2013 of the learned Civil Judge.
2. The learned ADJ has, in para 12 of the impugned judgment, held that RCA 20172/2016 was not maintainable, as the order of the learned Civil Judge was passed on a petition under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. She has relied, for the said purpose, on the judgment of this Court in ITC Ltd. v. Adarsh Cooperative, (2013)10 SCC 169, in which it has been held, categorically, that an unsuccessful litigant in a suit preferred under Section 6 of the Specific Relief
The court held that an appellate court should not make observations on merits if the appeal is deemed non-maintainable, to avoid influencing subsequent legal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under RERA cannot be termed as a 'decree' under Section 2(2) of C.P.C., despite Section 57 of sa....
Appeal – Order passed in miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC is an ‘order in appeal under Section 104 of CPC, from which Section 104(2) bars any further appeal.
The refusal to condone a 16-day delay in appeal due to medical incapacity was deemed perverse, affirming the right to a first appeal.
Second appeals are maintainable even if first appeals are dismissed as time-barred, preserving the right of appeal.
A subsequent suit for specific performance is maintainable only if the prior suit does not relinquish that right; withdrawal of the first suit does not bar the right to initiate a subsequent suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commercial Courts Act does not provide for a second appeal, and the non-obstante clause limits the right of appeals from the Commercial Ap....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
