Back
SUJOY PAUL
Vishnu Oil Industries – Appellant
Versus
Ramavtar Sarda – Respondent
ORDER :
Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Heard on the question of preliminary objection of maintainability/entertainability.
3. This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.03.2024 in I.A.No.393 of 2022 in O.S.No.479 of 2018.
4. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is appealable under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of C.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a plain reading of Order 12 Rule 6 makes it clear that the trial Court was under a statutory obligation to pass a preliminary decree. The impugned order shows that the trial Court has failed to draw any such preliminary decree. Further, after passing the impugned order, the trial Court has framed issues. In view of the heading above Order XLI i.e., “Appeals from original decrees”, it is urged that the appeal can lie only when a decree is drawn. Since, admittedly, no decree has been drawn, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal.
5. Apart from
The court clarified that appeals can be filed against judgments under amended Rule 1 of Order XLI, emphasizing that headings do not control the clear language of statutory provisions.
An order reversing a trial court's rejection of a plaint is a remand order, not a decree, thus subject to different appeal provisions.
The court established that an order reversing a trial court's rejection of a plaint is a remand order, not a decree, thus subject to different appeal provisions.
Judicial functions related to appeal admissions under Order 41 Rule 11 cannot be delegated to administrative staff but must be performed by the court, as established by substantive provisions of the ....
Judicial functions regarding the admission of appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure must be performed by the court, not delegated to registrars, preserving the integrity of judicial review.
The court ruled that an ex-parte order is interlocutory and barred from revision under the Commercial Courts Act, but the petitioner retains the right to participate in ongoing proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order declining leave to defend a suit under Order 37 of C.P.C., and only a regular a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
