Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
P.R.Saravanan - Appellant
Vs.
K.Dhanalakshmi (Died), K.Sivakumar - Respondent
A.S.Nos.617,618,619 and 621 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.11921, 11930, 11932, 11649, 12016 & 12017 of 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.R.Poornima, Mr.M.Venkadeshan, Mr.B.Nataraja

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 substantive admission stages.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI - Interpretation of amendments and procedures regarding appeals - The High Court deliberated on the necessity to list first appeals for admission in light of conflicting views in prior judgments, concluding that the previous interpretations creating an admission procedure under Order XLI Rule 11 were incorrect. The Court reaffirmed that first appeals must be issued notices upon registration without necessitating a preliminary admission hearing, aligning with Section 96. (Paras 3, 71, 139)

(B) Legal Precedents - The divergence in opinions across various rulings on appeal procedures led the Court to evaluate the validity of existing rules vis-à-vis the statutory mandates, and finally overruled earlier judgments suggesting an admission requirement, thus restoring the practice of issuing notices independently of admission qualification. (Paras 3, 139)

ORDER

(Order of the court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J.)

These appeals were originally listed before Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN for admission. Taking note of the fact that he was a part of the coram in V.S.Chandrasekaran -Vs- R.Uma (A.S.(MD)No. 5 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025), he referred the matter to this Division Bench.

Introduction

2. The practice of this Court has been that on the first appeal, being presented and numbered, notice is issued to the respondents. Thereafter, the appeals are listed for hear- ing before the appropriate Bench. The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR, took a view in Karupuchetty @ Vaiyapuri (Died) Vs. Papathi (A.S.No.148 of 2025 dated 07.03.2025) that after the amendment to Order XLI Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the first appeals would have to be listed for a hearing on “admission” and only thereafter the other steps can be taken.

3.Taking cognizance of this view, certain first appeals were listed for admission before a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Permanent Bench at Madurai. The Division Bench, consisting of one of us (Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.R.Swaminathan) and Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Jothiraman, took a view in V.S.Chandrasekaran -Vs- R.Uma (A.S.(MD)No. 5 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025) that the interpretation of Order XLI Rule 11 made in Karupuchetty's case is not in line with the Code and APPELLATE SIDE RULES . They further held that when the APPELLATE SIDE RULES of the Madras High Court are in variance with the first Schedule appended to the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , the APPELLATE SIDE RULES will take precedence. Consequently, they directed the procedure followed prior to Karupuchetty's case to be continued.

4. Within four days of the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Sathish Kumar in Prema -Vs- Nallasellam (A.S.No.586 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025) re- affirmed his opinion in Karupuchetty case. He held the judgment in V.S.Chandrasekaran's case is contrary to judgments of the Supreme Court, which are binding on all parties including the High Court Registry. He directed that the Registry should contin- ue to list the First Appeals for admission under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. On 16.05.2025, these appeals were listed for admission before Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN. Taking note of the incongruity expressed in the three judgments, he referred the matter to this Division Bench.

5. We heard the counsel on the short issue, “whether first appeals have to be listed for “admission”?”

Appeals down the ages and cultures

6. Appeals and appellate procedures are not a modern day discovery. Legal systems have slowly developed the concept of an appeal. We can usefully refer to a scholarly article written by Peter. S.Poland titled “Appellate Remedy: The Ancient Precedents of a Modern Right” published in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process [Volume 17, Page 11 (2016)].

7. A reading of this article shows that the Mesopotamian legal system, though it did not have a vertical hierarchy of courts as we know today, provided a means of redressal for the litigants to address their grievances. The legal system was in operation in the Second Millennium B.C.E. As per the system, the cases were presented before the Court. The Judgment used to be rendered and recorded in a clay tablet. Once the judgment was rendered, the parties were made to swear that no fresh litigation would be brought on the same cause of action. Unfortunately, such a procedure is not being followed today and the courts are repeatedly called upon to apply the principle of res judicata or nip the litigation in the bud as an abuse of process of law. Despite the same, such litigations are on the rise.

8. Even in this rudimentary system, if after the pronouncement of the judgment, new evidence emerged or if any “material error” could be pointed out during the first trial, the parties were permitted by law to bring forth a new proceeding to rectify “the material error that had occurred in the first trial”.

9. The Mesopotamian