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

2008 Supreme(All) 2549

PANKAJ MITHAL
MAHENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
HAQIMUDDIN – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Nalin Kumar Sharma for the Appellant; S.C. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Honble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

2. The plaintiff-appellant had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,000/-. The suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance and so is the appeal by the lower appellate Court. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this second appeal.

3. The valuation of the suit as well this second appeal is Rs. 25,000/-. Section 102, CPC as amended w.e.f. 1.7.2007 provides that no second appeal would lie in petty matters in which valuation of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. Section 102, CPC as it stand today is reproduced herein below :

"102. No second appeal in certain cases.—No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees."

4. Admittedly, the subject matter of the original suit from which the appeal arises is not more than Rs. 25,000/-. The second appeal against such orders have been specifically barred by Section 102, CPC. A right to appeal is not an inherent or a vested right but only a statutory right. Therefore, where the appeal is expressly barred, it




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top