Back
2002 Supreme(Ori) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.P. Das, J.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - APPELLANT
Versus
ISWAR CHANDRA SAHU, RENGALI IRRIGATION PROJECT - RESPONDENT
F.A. No. 215 of 1999
Decided On : 16-08-2002
The deposit of decretal amount is not a prerequisite for admitting the appeal, and certain cases exempt the Government from providing security as per Order 27, Rule 8-A, C.P.C.
Headnote:
Order 41, Rule 1(3) - Appeal Admittance - The court held that the deposit of decretal amount is not a prerequisite for admitting the appeal, and non-compliance only results in not granting the stay of execution of the decree. Additionally, under Order 27, Rule 8-A, no security is required from the Government or public officer in certain cases, and the appeal was admitted based on this provision.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was declined by the Registrar (Judicial) due to non-deposit of the decretal amount as per Order 41, Rule 1(3), C.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deposit of decretal amount is not a prerequisite for admitting the appeal, and the order of the Registrar (Judicial) was deemed to be the outcome of non-application of mind and without going through the provisions of the C.P.C. governing the field.
Issues: Admittance of appeal based on deposit of decretal amount and the application of Order 27, Rule 8-A, C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The deposit of decretal amount is not a prerequisite for admitting the appeal, and Order 27, Rule 8-A, C.P.C., exempts the Government from providing security in certain cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was admitted, and requisites for issue of notice to the respondent were to be filed within 7 days.
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Das, J. - Heard Shri Sangram Das, Addl. Standing Counsel for the appellant.
2. This mater was placed before this Court on the basis of the order dated 7.8.2002 by which the Registrar (Judicial) declined to admit the appeal on the ground of not depositing the decretal amount in terms of Order 41, Rule 1 (3), C.P.C. On a conjoint reading of Order 41, Rule 1(3) and Order 41, Rule 5(5), C.P.C., the irresistible conclusion is that deposit of decretal amount is not pre-requisite for admitting the appeal. The consequence of non-compliance of Order 41, Rule 1 (3), C.P.C. can only result in not granting the stay of execution of the decree. That apart, under Order 27, Rule 8-A. no security is required from Government or public officer in certain cases. Here, the appellant is the Government. So, Order 27. Rule 8(A), C.P.C. Is squarely applicable. The appeal is admitted. Requisites for issue of notice to the respondent to be filed within 7 days.
3. The order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) seems to be the outcome of non-application of mind and without going through the provisions of the C.P.C. governing the field.
