A single second appeal is maintainable against multiple decrees from a single suit, clarifying procedural requirements under the CPC and High Court Rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

The instant second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree drawn by First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010, and, additionally, part of the judgment passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No. 289 of 1984 has also been assailed.

2. The Stamp Reporting Section has endorsed a report regarding requirement of filing separate second appeals arising out of each civil appeal.

3. Learned counsel for both parties have been heard at length against and in support of the said report and also on the point as to whether it is at all necessary to attach a copy of the decree of the first appellate Court alongwith memo of second appeal, inasmuch as it is contended by Sri Prajyot Rai, learned counsel for the appellant, that it is not the requirement of law as per certain amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court, therefore, proceeds to deal with the said objection and contention.

4. The proceedings giving rise to instant appeal emanate from an Original Suit No. 289 of 1984 instituted by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondents claiming decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Aggrieved by that part whereby the plaintiff's claim was not accepted, he filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010, whereas against partial decree against them, the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010. Both the said civil appeals were consolidated and have been decided by a common judgment dated 18.3.2024 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in toto. By the same judgment, a third Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010 filed by the respondents of this appeal and arising out of a different suit, i.e. Original Suit No. 477 of 1984, was also dismissed, however, the present appellant has no concern with Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010 and has not challenged that decree. Whereas, Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010 was dismissed, the Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010 was allowed and the present appellant is aggrieved as such.

5. It is contended on behalf of appellant that in the aforesaid background of proceedings, it is neither necessary to file another appeal nor to attach copy of any separate decree. It is further contended that even requirement to attach decree of the first appellate Court is not necessary. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Sahai v. Daryao Kunwar and another, AIR 1963 Allahabad 2010, in which, a situation with regard to different decrees drawn by civil appellate Court arising out of single suit and two suits, was dealt with after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narhari v. Shankar, AIR 1953 SC 419. He also placed reliance upon Five Judges' Full Bench decision of this Court in Jai Narain Har Narain and another v. L. Bulaqi Das s/o L. Munna Lal, AIR 1969 (Ald) 504.

6. It is vehemently argued with the aid of written synopsis that till 1859, in India, there was no uniform codified law for the procedures to be followed in Civil Courts. For the first time in 1859, an organized form of Civil Procedure Code was introduced by passing the Civil Procedure Code (Act VII of 1859). The Code of 1859 was amended from time to time and was replaced by the Civil Procedure Code, 1877. This Code of 1877 was amended in 1878 and 1879 and the third Civil Procedure Code was enacted in 1882, which replaced the previous one. The Code of 1882 was also amended several times and, ultimately, the present Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came in existence on January 1, 1909. The C.P.C was again extensively amended in the year 1976 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1976) which came into force on February 1, 1977 but the amendments made were not sufficient and, therefore, with a view to adjudicate upon civil cases in an expeditious manner, Justice Malimath Committee was appointed