SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ker) 74

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, ANU SIVARAMAN
Cholasseri Hamza – Appellant
Versus
T. V. Udayaraj – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
T. Sethumadhavsan, Kodoth Pushparajan, Jayesh Mohankumar, Krishnan Unni

JUDGMENT :

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This interlocutory application is filed invoking Sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents who are defendants in O.S. No. 290 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Manjeri. That suit, which was valued at Rs.2,10,874/-, was partly decreed. The plaintiffs appealed it before the High Court. The defendants have filed an appeal before the District Court, Manjeri as A.S. No. 110 of 2005. The request is that the said appeal be withdrawn to this Court in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. When two appeals arise from the same suit, it is obviously a grave error, and an apparent deficit in legal advice, that one of the appeals was instituted before the District Court because the value of the subject matter of the suit from which both the appeals arise; which is the decisive factor; is beyond Rs.2,00,000/- and, therefore, any appeal could have been entertained only by the High Court even if the amount in dispute in any of the appeals arising from the decree in that suit is much below the outer limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.

3. Repeated situations as afore-noted would have


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top