The appeal is not maintainable in the High Court due to valuation issues and procedural defects as per applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Regular First Appeal is preferred, challenging the common judgment and decree in O.S No.151 of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The Registry of this Court noted a defect, pointing out that since the valuation of the suit, which was filed after 06.05.2013, is Rs.7.5 lakhs (i.e., less than Rs.20 lakhs), whether the RFA is maintainable before this Court. The Registry also noted that there is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and no application to condone delay is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant answered the defects as follows:

“i. The suit OS 151/2022 is tried jointly with OS 126/2022 by the Honourable Sub Court, Manjeri as per order in OP (Transfer) 240/2024 by the Honourable District Court, Manjeri and appeal against OS 126/2022 is filed before the Honourable High Court of Kerala vide Efile Number: EF-HCK-2026-001566. Since appeal against suit OS 126/2022 is filed before the Honorable High Court of Kerala as its valuation is above Rupees Twenty Lakhs the appeal against this suit OS 151/2022 is also filed before the Honourable High Court of Kerala though the valuation is less.

ii. As per Order XLI Rule 1 Proviso, where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgement has been delivered thereof and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by the judgement the appellate court may dispense with filing of more than one judgement. Since the Judgement produced along with the other appeal against OS 126/2022 is filed before the Honourable High Court of Kerala vide Efile Number: EF-HCK-2026-001566 is within time, the production of same may be dispensed.”

The two suits, O.S No.126 of 2022 and O.S No.151 of 2022 were tried jointly and common judgment was passed. The petitioner has filed an appeal against O.S No.126 of 2022 before this Court as R.F.A No.5 of 2026. The valuation of the said suit is above Rs.20 lakhs, whereas in O.S. No.151 of 2022, the valuation of the suit is Rs.7.5 lakhs. Since the valuation in O.S. No.151 of 2022 is less than Rs.20 Lakhs, the Registry has taken the stand that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

2. With regard to the defect relating to pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Deb Kumar Mondal v. Gour Hari Mondal and Ors. [AIR Online 2019 Cal 175] and contends that where two appeals are proposed to be filed from a single judgment and decree, one before the District Court and another before the High Court, in such event, both appeals should be filed before the High Court. The appeals in that case arose from a single judgment on an original claim and a counter claim. Here there is no counter claim but the suits were tried jointly and common judgment was passed.

3. The proper course open for the appellant is to prefer the appeal against O.S. No.151 of 2022 before the District Court and to file appropriate application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer/withdrawal of the appeal to this Court to be heard and disposed of along with R.F.A No.5 of 2026.

4. As regards the second defect noted by the Registry, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the provisions contained under proviso to Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC. However, the said proviso only provides for dispensing the copy of the judgment and decree while filing more than one judgment against the common judgment and does not provide for dispensing with application for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, both defects noted by the Registry are sustained.