2013 Supreme(Raj) 1445
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Kanhaiyalal & Anr - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamla & Ors - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 629, 557, 558, 559, 560 of 2013.
Decided On : 5-07-2013
For the Appellant:Tribhuvan Gupta, Advocate.
No appeal lies from an order passed in appeal under Section 104 C.P.C., including an order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23 or 23A, in an appeal under Section 104 C.P.C.
Headnote:
APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER 43, RULE 1 (U) C.P.C. - SECTION 104(2) C.P.C. - APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF REMAND - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - NO APPEAL LIES FROM ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL - APPEAL NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding land. Defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., claiming the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court as it related to agricultural land. The trial court allowed the application and ordered the return of the plaint. Plaintiff appealed under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C., which was allowed by the appellate court. Defendants appealed against the appellate court's order under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C. was not maintainable as it was against an order passed in appeal under Section 104 C.P.C., which is barred by Section 104(2) C.P.C. The court also held that the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. was not maintainable as no second appeal lies from an order passed by the appellate court under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies from an order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23 or 23A, in an appeal under Section 104 C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 104 and Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C. and held that an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C. is maintainable only against an order under Rule 23 or 23A of Order 41 remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court. Since no appeal lies from an order passed in appeal under Section 104 C.P.C., no second appeal lies from an order passed by the appellate court under Order 43, Rule 1 (a) C.P.C. Therefore, the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (u) C.P.C. was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. However, it allowed the appellants to take appropriate proceedings against the impugned order, if so advised, and clarified that the dismissal of the present appeals would not affect the said proceedings.
"Section 104. Orders from which appeal lies.-(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:
[(ff) an order tinder Section 35A;]
[(ffa) and order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in Section 91 or Section 92, as the case may be;]
(g) an order under Section 95;
(h) an order tinder any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree;
(i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules;
[Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in Clause (1I save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.]
(2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section."
"ORDER XLIII
1. Appeal from orders.-An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely
(u) an order under Rule 23 [or Rule 23A] or Order 41 remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court;"