Back
2002 Supreme(MP) 692
2003(1) JLJ 233
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Food Corporation of India and another v.
Munnilal Singh and another
S.A. No. 980 of 1998; Decided on 15.7.2002.
R.K. Gupta for appellants; Imtiyaz Hussain for respondent No.1;
R.P. Jain for intervenor.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100 and 115 -- memo of second appeal -- cannot be treated as memo of revision -- requirements are different -- one cannot be converted into another.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 115, 100 and 102 -- second appeal filed much before the amendment of S. 102 in 2002 -- may be allowed to be withdrawn to file revision to be heard on merits.
The question is whether any appeal which was pending on 1.7.2002 will be governed by the aforesaid section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Para 13
Held: In second appeal, memo of appeal shall concisely set forth substantial question of law involved in appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contents for memo of appeal in second appeal are based on different requirements, while the memo of revision has to contend the facts of the case and specific averments that the Court either has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; without such averments in memo of revision it will be incomplete, and the revisional Court may not entertain a revision. In the circumstances, memo of appeal and memo of revision are based on different requirements. In the circumstances, memo of appeal cannot be treated as a memo of revision. Similar is the position under Order 41 Rule 3 of the Code. If the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up in the manner prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, the memo of appeal shall be rejected or returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended within a time to be fixed by the Court or be amended then and there. In the circumstances, it will not be just and proper to convert the memo of appeal into revision. However, appellants who had filed present appeal much before the amendment in section 102, Code of Civil Procedure, can be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file a revision or other proceeding as they choose in accordance with law. [Para 14
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 100(4), 102 (as amended), O.41 Rr. 11 and 16 and O. 42 R. 2 -- Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002 -- Ss. 16(2)(a) and 5 -- money suit below Rs. 25,000/- -- second appeal pending without admission on commencement of Amending Act. -- liable to be dismissed as not maintainable -- for mutation of substantial questions of law -- amounts to admission.
If in a second appeal, substantial question of law is not formulated then it cannot be heard finally. In the circumstances, the formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. To give effect to section 102, newly amended, it can reasonably be held that until and unless substantial question of law is formulated, an appeal cannot be deemed to have passed through the stage of Order 41 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, intention of legislature in section 102 is that when the substantial question of law is formulated as required under section 100 and Order 42 Rule 2 of the Code, appeal shall be deemed to be admitted. If before this, Court has issued notice to the other side, it is in the stage of determining whether in the appeal any substantial question of law is involved or not. Thereafter, the Court will either formulate such substantial question of law and the appeal will proceed further, otherwise appeal shall be dismissed. Only after admission of appeal, provision of rule 16 of order 41 will apply. In the circumstances, the word ‘admitted‘ used in section 16(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will mean that Court, after hearing the appeal on formation of substantial question of law, is satisfied that the substantial question of law is involved and formulates such substantial question of law, then only appeal would be deemed to have been "admitted". [Para 13
(4) Court-fees Act, 1870 -- Ss. 13, 14 and 15 -- second appeal rendered as not maintainable by subsequent amendment -- court-fees cannot be refunded while rejecting the same as not maintainable. [Para 15
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 rFkk 115 && f}rh; vihy dk Kkiu && iqujh{k.k dk Kkiu ugha ekuk tk ldrk && vis{kk,¡ fHkUu gSa && ,d dks nwljs esa laifjofrZr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115] 100 rFkk 102 && f}rh; vihy] lu~ 2002 esa /kkjk 102 ds la‘kks/ku ls cgqr igys Qkby dh xbZ && xq.kkxq.k ij lquokbZ ds fy, iqujh{k.k Qkby djus ds fy, okil ysus dh vuqKk nh tk ldrh gSA
iz‘u ;g gS fd D;k 1-7-2002 dks yafcr dksbZ Hkh vihy flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 102 }kjk fofu;fer gksxh \
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % f}rh; vihy esa] vihy ds Kkiu esa vihy esa varoZfyr fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u laf{kIrr% izLrqr fd;k tk,xkA iwoksZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa f}rh; vihy esa vihy Kkiu dh varoZLrq fHkUu vis{kkvksa ij vk/kkfjr gS tcfd iqujh{k.k ds Kkiu esa ekeys ds rF;ksa dk ladFku rFkk fofufnZ"V izdFku gksrs gSa fd U;k;ky; }kjk ,slh vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr dh xbZ gS tks fof/k fufgr ugha Fkh vFkok bl izdkj fufgr vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr djus esa U;k;ky; foQy jgk gS vFkok vf/kdkfjrk dk voS/k :i ls ;k egRoiw.kZ vfu;ferrk ls iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS( ,sls izdFkuksa ds fcuk iqujh{k.k dk Kkiu viw.kZ gksxk rFkk iqujh{k.k U;k;ky; }kjk iqujh{k.k xzg.k ugha Hkh fd;k tk ldrkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vihy Kkiu rFkk iqujh{k.k Kkiu fHkUu&fHkUu vis{kkvksa ij vk/kkfjr gksrs gSaA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vihy dk Kkiu] iqujh{k.k dk Kkiu ugha ekuk tk ldrkA lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 3 ds v/khu blh izdkj dh fLFkfr gSA ;fn vihy dk Kkiu flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 3 ds vkhu fofgr jhfr esa ugha cuk;k x;k gks rc vihy dk Kkiu vLohd`r gks tk,xk vFkok U;k;ky; }kjk fu;e le; ds Hkhrj la‘kks/ku ds fy, ;k ogha ij la‘kksf/kr fd, tkus ds fy, vihykFkhZ dks ykSVk fn;k tk,xkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vihy dk Kkiu] iqujh{k.k ds Kkiu esa laifjofrZr djuk _tq rFkk mfpr ugha gksxkA rFkkfi] vihykFkhZx.k dks] ftUgksaus izLrqr vihy flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 102 ds la‘kks/ku ls cgqr igys Qkby dh Fkh] fof/k ds vuqlkj iqujh{k.k vFkok muds }kjk ;Fkk p;fur vU; dk;Zokgh Qkby djus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk ;g vihy okil ysus dh vuqKk nh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 14
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100¼4½] 102 ¼;Fkkla‘kksf/kr½] vk- 41 fu- 11 ,oa 16 rFkk vk- 42 fu- 2 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2002 && /kkjk 16¼2½ ¼d½ rFkk 5 && :- 25]000@& ls de /ku dk okn && la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e ds izkjaHk ds le; f}rh; vihy xzg.k ds fcuk yafcr && pyus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS && fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz‘u cuk, tkuk && xzg.k dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA
;fn f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr ugha fd;k x;k gks] rc mls vafre :i ls lquk ugha tk ldrkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gSA uola‘kksf/kr /kkjk 102 dks izHkkoh djus ds fy, ;qfDr;qDrr% vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr ugha fd;k tkrk] rc rd ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vihy flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 41 fu;e 11 ds izØe ls vkxs vk xbZ gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] /kkjk 102 esa fo/kku eaMy dk vk‘k; gS fd tc lafgrk dh kkjk 100 rFkk vkns‘k 42 fu;e 2 ds v/khu ;Fkkisf{kr fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr dj fy;k tk, rc vihy x`ghr le>h tk,xhA ;fn blls iwoZ U;k;ky; }kjk vU; i{k dks lwpuk tkjh dj nh xbZ gks rc og bl vo/kkj.k ds izØe ij gksxh fd vihy esa fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u varoZfyr gS ;k ughaA rRi‘pkr~] U;k;y; }kjk fof/k dk ,slk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr fd;k tk,xk vkSj vihy esa vkxs dk;Zokgh gksxh] vU;Fkk vihy [kkfjt gks tk,xhA vihy ds xzg.k ds i‘pkr~ gh] vkns‘k 41 ds fu;e 16 dk mica/k ykxw gksxkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e 2002 dh /kkjk 16¼2½¼d½ esa iz;qDr ‘‘kCn ^^xzg.k dh xbZ** dk vFkZ gksxk fd vihy esa fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr fd, tkus ij lquokbZ ds i‘pkr~ U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gks x;k gS fd fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u varoZfyr gS rFkk mlds }kjk fof/k dk ,slk lkjoku~ iz‘u fojfpr fd;k tkrk gS] dsoy rc gh vihy ^^xzg.k dh xbZ** ekuh tk,xhA ¿ iSjk 13
¼4½ U;k;ky; Qhl vf/kfu;e] 1870 && /kkjk 13] 14 rFkk 15 && i‘pkr~orhZ la‘kks/ku ls f}rh; vihy pyus ;ksX; ugha jgh && pyus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds dkj.k mls ukeatwj djrs le; U;k;ky; Qhl izfrnÙk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 15
1. Defendants have filed present appeal challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which suit filed by the• respondent No. 1/plaintiff was decreed for Rs. 15,400/-.
2. Short facts of the case are that plaintiff entered into an agreement with appellants for transportation of goods from Irarsi railway station to the godowns of appel1ants. for this purpose, respondent No. 1 submitted a guarantee through respondent No.2 New Bank of India. Contention of the plaintiff was that he has completed the work as per conditions of the agreement and was entitled for refund of bank guarantee and in-spite of several requests, appellants have not refunded the guarantee amount. On these grounds, suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 16,900/-.
3. Appellants denied the claim contending that plaintiff has committed breach of the agreement. He has not transported 120 bags of sugar in time to godown of defendant at Pipariya and there was delay in transpo11ing the aforesaid sugar. He has misused stock of sugar resulting loss to the appellants and, in consequence, the bank guarantee was forfeited. Respondent bank contended that it was unnecessarily made party. There is defect of misjoinder of party. Apart from this, as per condition of bank guarantee, plaintiff is not entitled for refund of amount of bank guarantee and plaintiff is under obligation to return the bank guarantee after due discharge from appellants.
4. Learned trial Court framed issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit.
5. It is pertinent to mention that the valuation of suit in the trial Court was Rs. 16,900/- and it was a money suit for recovery of the amount.
6. Aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial Court, appellants preferred appeal. Plaintiff also preferred cross-objection, but the learned lower appellate Court dismissed both, the appeal and cross-objection, and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed.
7. This appeal was filed on 28.10.1998. On 11.11.1998 this Court issued notice to the respondents and case was directed to be listed for hearing on admission on December 3, 1998. Thereafter, the case was listed for orders on admission and IA No. 7067/98 for stay, but the records of the Courts below were not received. On 28.1.1999 service report of respondent No. 2 was awaited, so the case was adjourned. Thereafter, the case was listed on 10.2.1999. On that date, prayer for stay was rejected and it was directed that appellants will• deposit the decrial amount, within a month from that date, respondent No. 1 will withdraw the amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. On 31.3.1999 the case was listed for hearing on interim application but the case was adjourned. Thereafter, the case was listed on 3.7.2002 for hearing on admission.
8. At the time of heating, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that present appeal has not been admitted and in view of amendment in Code of Civil Procedure, in section 102 of the Code, this appeal is not maintainable as the valuation of this appeal and the suit is less than Rs. 25,000/-.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this appeal this Court has already applied mind and also issued notice to the respondents. In the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no provision for issuing notice to the respondent prior to framing substantial question of law and in the circumstances, the order dated 11.11.1998 will be deemed to be an order of admission of appeal.
10. Shri R.P. Jain, learned counsel present in Court, has also intervened in the case and supported the argument advanced on behalf of appellants. Learned counsel submits that the amendment in Code of Civil Procedure was made subsequently to filing of appeal. Right of appellants was available on the date when suit was filed. In the circumstances, second appeal filed within time and on the date of filing of appeal, appeal was not barred. In the circumstance,
