2023 Supreme(Ker) 966
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, P. G. AJITHKUMAR
Lailamma Vasudevan W/o Vasudevan – Appellant
Versus
Muthoot Vehicles & Assets Finance Limited – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.N.Sankarjee, V.N.Madhusudanan, R.Udaya Jyothi, M.M.Vinod, M.Suseela, Keerthi B. Chandran, Vijayan Pillai P.K., C.Purushothaman Nair, Nitheesh.M, Sukanya S.
For the Respondent: C.S.Manilal
ORDER :
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
A Full Bench of this Court in Mohamemad Khan v. State Bank of Travancore [1978 KLT 262] held,
“.....There is also the fact that the order challenged in this appeal is not any adjudication in a suit. It is an adjudication in execution proceedings, such adjudication would have been appealable as a decree when the definition of 'decree' was wide enough to include an order under Section 47. If it had thus been a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) we would have been called upon to consider whether, notwithstanding the absence of a provision for appeal in the enactment, the order of the court below also should be considered as an appealable order. But the express omission of orders under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the definition of decree in Section 2(2) has rendered orders under Section 47 not appealable since the commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 104 of 1976. The order impugned in this case was passed subsequent to such amendment. Hence we hold that no appeal would lie against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.”
2. Apparently, the said principle of law would have to hold the field and this appeal filed u
Click Here to Read the rest of this document