An appeal has to be admitted or dismissed only as a whole under O. XLI R.11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. The second appeal was admitted by Madhavan Nair, J. "Notice on ground No. 10". The learned Advocate General questions the correctness of piecemeal admission of second appeals like this. He draws my attention to a few decisions on the question. The first of them is P. Lakshmi Kutty Pillai v. P. Velayudhan Pillai (ILR. 1952 T.C. 385). Subramania Iyer, J. has discussed the various decisions on the question and has also considered the effect of R.11 and 12 of O. XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, the learned judge has considered two Full Bench decisions, one, of the Madras High Court in Vattipalle Eswariah v. Vattipalle Rameswarayya (AIR. 1940 Mad. 483) and the other, of the Bombay High Court in Krishnaji Shrinivas Jalvadi v. Madhusa Appansa Ladaba (AIR. 1934 Bom. 207). In the Bombay decision the Full Bench held that if the subject-matter of an appeal was severable, it was open to the judge to admit it and at the same time to restrict the grounds on which the appeal was to be heard. In the

Madras ruling it was held that the court had no jurisdiction to admit an appeal in part and dismiss it in part, even if the appeal consisted of distinct and severable parts. Subramania Iyer, J. has held that in the case before him the conflict between the Madras and the Bombay High Courts did not arise, because the subject-matter in that case was not severable in parts.

2. In the Bombay case two survey numbers were involved; and Barlee, J., who heard the appeal under R.11, ordered notice to issue on one of the survey numbers, but said nothing about the other survey number. The learned judges of the Full Bench held that it was open to the judge who heard the appeal under R.11 to dismiss the appeal in part and admit it in part; but, as the subject-matter of the appeal was not severable in parts, the judge could not restrict the grounds on which the appeal was to be heard. Ultimately, the Full Bench held that Barlee, J., did not dismiss the appeal as to one survey number, but said nothing about it and he admitted the appeal as to the other survey number. In that situation, since the appeal was not dismissed regarding one survey number, the Full Bench held that the entire appeal could be heard. The Full Bench also indicated that in the Bombay High Court there was, rightly or wrongly, a practice of admitting appeals in part. A reading of this decision impels me to think that the prevailing practice in the Bombay High Court was largely responsible to make the judges take such a course.

3. The Madras Full Bench has not accepted the Bombay view. It has held that the appellate court may dismiss the appeal without serving notice on the respondent under R.11 of O. XLI; but, if it does not so dismiss the appeal summarily it must, by virtue of R.12 (1), fix a day for hearing the appeal, which means the entire appeal. The learned judges have, however, pointed out that if at the time of admission the counsel of the appellant confined his case to some of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and the judge who heard the appeal under R.11 made a note of that, the appeal may be confined to those grounds alone. This, the learned judges have made clear, was different from passing a substantive order admitting the appeal in part. -

4. Another decision brought to my notice is Rekha Thakur v. Ramanadan Rai (AIR. 1936 Pat. 7). There also a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held that there was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure enabling the court of appeal to pass art order partly admitting and partly dismissing an appeal; and that in the prevailing state of the jaw, it must be held that an appeal could not be admitted on a limited ground, but could be admitted only as a whole. The decision has proceeded to state that if at the time of admission the appellate court was informed that the appeal would be confined to certain specified grounds only and that the other grounds were abandoned or if it was conceded on behalf of