1. Plaintiff is in second appeal assailing the judgment in RA 348/07 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Mysore, whereby the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.1741/05 decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant as prayed granting damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, is set aside.

2. Upon prior notice, the respondent - defendant has entered contest. When the appeal came up for hearing, Mr. Ganesh Kumar would raise a preliminary objection about maintainability of this appeal on the basis of restriction imposed on the right of appeal under S.102, CPC

3. In support of the grounds to non - suit the appellant, he would submit the suit of the plaintiff was for damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-; the trial Court had decreed the suit while the appellate Court has annulled the decree in his favour. Thus the appellant could not have resorted to second appeal as the subject matter of the suit was to grant damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and against such judgment and decree, no second appeal is permissible. He referred to the provision of S.102, CPC which envisages '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. Thus he submits second appeal is barred and seeks citational support to his contention relying on the following decisions:
I) Krishan Lal v. M/s. Meet Finance Company
rendered by the Delhi High Court in which the learned single Judge, referring to the facts pleaded in the plaint seeking damages in a sum of Rs. 16,170/- and also prayer for mandatory injunction for restoration of vehicle, opined thus:
'10. Petitioner / plaintiff thereafter filed a Regular Second Appeal but a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that subject matter of suit was for a recovery of an amount not exceeding Rs. 25,000/-. The order of learned Single Judge dated 2nd May, 2007 is reproduced herein below for ready reference: -
'Heard counsel for the parties.
Since the original suit was filed before the trial Court for recovery of Rs. 16,170/-, this case is clearly barred under S.102 CPC, wherein it is mentioned that 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. It was also pointed out that relief of mandatory injunction was given up subsequently.
In view of this position, counsel for the appellant submits that he will seek remedy somewhere else. -
RSA No. 172/2006 is accordingly dismissed.'
The second decision is:
II) Vice Chancellor and Others v. Jaisy K. Joseph : AIR 2011 CC 1519 (Ker).
rendered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in which the learned single Judge, in a case where the plaintiff had sought for a judgment and decree in a sum of Rs. 15,000/- based on non - evaluation of mathematics paper, opined thus:
'9. There is yet another reason for not interfering with the judgments of the Courts below. A Second Appeal is not maintainable in the present case in view of S.102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: CRP No. 368 of 2004 & quot; No the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty - five thousand rupees & quot; S.102 was substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999(Act 46 of 1999) wherein the amendment sought to be introduced was as follows: & quot; 102. No second appeal in certain cases: - No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed twenty - five thousand rupees. & quot; Subsequently, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act 22 of 2002) which came into force on 01.07.2002, the amendment proposed to be effected by Act 46 of 1999 was substituted with the present S.102. As per the amendment of Act 1999, irrespective of the nature of the suit, no Second Appeal would lie a