Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinita Mehta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 547

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. K. MAHESHWARI
Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinita Mehta – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope of the first appeal under Civil Procedure Code Section 96 and how should it address questions of fact and law on reappreciation of material and evidence? What is the proper approach to the Consolidated Legal Multiple Appeals (CLMA) in the context of a common judgment with two separate decrees, and how should its decision affect maintainability of a single appeal vs. separate appeals? What is the remedy when a High Court fails to adjudicate an admissible CLMA and prematurely disposes of an appeal on the ground of res judicata, and what direction does the Supreme Court give?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the scope of the first appeal under Civil Procedure Code Section 96 and how should it address questions of fact and law on reappreciation of material and evidence?

What is the proper approach to the Consolidated Legal Multiple Appeals (CLMA) in the context of a common judgment with two separate decrees, and how should its decision affect maintainability of a single appeal vs. separate appeals?

What is the remedy when a High Court fails to adjudicate an admissible CLMA and prematurely disposes of an appeal on the ground of res judicata, and what direction does the Supreme Court give?

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 04.07.2018, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal No.50 of 2008, preferred by appellant herein against the 'common judgment' dated 16.04.2008 passed by Trial Court in Suit No.411 of 1989 (filed by respondents herein joining appellant as defendant) and Suit No.419 of 1993 (filed by appellant herein joining respondents as defendant). In Suit No.411 of 1989, respondents sought 'permanent injunction' against appellant restraining it from interfering in the right of use of concerned passage or causing any interference or putting any obstruction in the usage of the said passage and not to make any septic tank, soakage pit or raise any other construction. The respondents also prayed for grant of 'mandatory injunction' against the appellant, making prayer to remove and demolish the walls on the concerned passage and restoring the passage to its original width of 13 ft. and filling up the ditch near the gate of plaintiff no.2 (respondent no.2 herein). In Suit No.419 of 1993, appellant herein prayed for 'permanent injunction' restraining the respondents/defendants from providing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 547

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. K. MAHESHWARIRamnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusVinita Mehta – Respondent

What is the scope of the first appeal under Civil Procedure Code Section 96 and how should it address questions of fact and law on reappreciation of material and evidence?

What is the proper approach to the Consolidated Legal Multiple Appeals (CLMA) in the context of a common judgment with two separate decrees, and how should its decision affect maintainability of a single appeal vs. separate appeals?

What is the remedy when a High Court fails to adjudicate an admissible CLMA and prematurely disposes of an appeal on the ground of res judicata, and what direction does the Supreme Court give?

Cases Referred (4)

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. K. MAHESHWARI
Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vinita Mehta – Respondent