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

2013 Supreme(Raj) 834

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Birdha Ram - Appellant
Versus
Manohar Lal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 233 of 2010.
Decided On : 15-02-2013

For the Appellant:C.R. Jakhar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Bharat Boob for O.P. Boob, Advocates.

A judgment rejecting a plaint is a 'decree' and is appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

Order 43 - Appeal against Order - Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC - The court held that a judgment rejecting a plaint is a 'decree' and is appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting the plaint would not lie. The appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal was ordered to be converted into Civil Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Fact of the Case:

The trial court allowed the respondent's application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC was not maintainable and ordered it to be converted into Civil Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC against the order of the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a judgment rejecting a plaint is a 'decree' and is appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting the plaint would not lie.

Final Decision: The appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC was found to be not maintainable and was ordered to be converted into Civil Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 09.11.2009 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent that appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC was not maintainable against the said order dated 09.11.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ragam Yellaiah and Ors. v. Chinta Shankaraiah reported at 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 549 (AP).

4. The said view taken by the learned Single Judge has been overruled by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court vide its Full Bench judgment dated 11.04.2011 in the case of Molugu Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Molugu Vittal Reddy and Ors. inter alia holding that:-

"In the result for the above reasons, the reference is answered as follows. On the true construction of Sections 2(2), 2(9), 2(14) and Sections 96, 104 and 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the conclusion is irresistible that a judgment rejecting a plaint is "decree" and is appealable under Section 96. A miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting the plaint would not lie. There is a much consensus of judicial opinion that supports this conclusion. A Plaintiff, who is aggrieved by rejection of the plaint for any of the reasons as contemplated under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) to (f), is entitled to file a regular appeal under Section 96, and a miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1 is barred."

5. In that view of the matter, the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC is apparently not maintainable and the same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 CPC may be converted into an appeal under Section 96 CPC as the forum and limitation is the same.

7. Considering the request made in this regard and the fact that the matter has remained pending before this Court after the same was filed within limitation, the said appeal is ordered to be converted into Civil Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant may file amended cause title in this regard along with requisite Court fee within a period of four weeks, as the Court fee appears to be a bit high and plaintiff is 70 years old person. On doing the needful, office may proceed in the matter.Appeal Dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top