Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
V.S.Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
R.Uma – Respondent
ORDER :
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
This first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2024 made in O.S No.88 of 2018 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai District. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of money. The long prevailing practice of the Madras High Court is that notice will be issued to the respondents by the Registry after numbering the first appeal. Instead of doing so, the appeal has been listed under the caption “For Admission” before this Bench. The Registry has done so on account of the direction issued by The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar vide order dated 07.03.2025 in A.S No. 148 of 2025. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said order read as follows :
“21.On circumspection of the overall parametres discussed hereinabove, coupled with various judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court, it is amply clear that appeals should be posted before the Judge for admission. Thus, in view of the amendment to Order XLI Rule 11, all First Appeals shall be hereafter posted before the concerned Court for admission and it is for the Judge to decide whether the appeal requires to be admitt
The court established that all first appeals under Section 96 of CPC must be posted for admission before the concerned judge, overriding the previous automatic admission practice.
The right to appeal in civil matters is fundamental and must be respected without imposing unnecessary preliminary admission criteria, thus mandates notice upon appeal registration without substantiv....
Court affirmed the Appellate Side Rules over amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, maintaining that first appeals do not require an admission stage, thus protecting the litigants' right to appea....
Judicial functions regarding the admission of appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure must be performed by the court, not delegated to registrars, preserving the integrity of judicial review.
Judicial functions related to appeal admissions under Order 41 Rule 11 cannot be delegated to administrative staff but must be performed by the court, as established by substantive provisions of the ....
The First Appellate Court must comply with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. by independently assessing the evidence, formulating specific points for determination, and giving reasons for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. by the First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal, and the requirement for the Appellat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., the requirement for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence, and the need ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. by the First Appellate Court, emphasizing the need for independent assessment of evidence, f....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
