Ananta Kalappa Jaratakhane Vs. Krishtappa & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18008 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18008 of 1998)
Petitioner: Ananta Kalappa Jaratakhane
Respondent: Krishtappa & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18008 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18008 of 1998)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 03, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 100 – Second Appeal – Procedure for disposal – Jurisdic-tion in respect of second appeal being limited, the procedure prescribed by Section 100 C.P.C., ought to be followed – Appeal directed to be restored to the file of High Court for expeditious disposal.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. As respondent no.1 is the only contesting party his learned counsel is heard on merits. Having carefully gone through the judgment under appeal we find that with respect the learned Judge while deciding the Second Appeal had not kept in view the limit-ed jurisdiction and the procedure required to be followed under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). To say the least the judgment under appeal is totally unsustainable. Only on this short ground and without going further into the merits of the matter this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order in Second Appeal No. 609 of 1996 are set aside and the Second Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same in accordance with law after following the procedure and in the light of limited jurisdiction available under Section 100, C.P.C. As the Second Appeal is of 1996 the High Court may make it convenient to dispose of the same at the earliest.
4. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
3. As respondent no.1 is the only contesting party his learned counsel is heard on merits. Having carefully gone through the judgment under appeal we find that with respect the learned Judge while deciding the Second Appeal had not kept in view the limit-ed jurisdiction and the procedure required to be followed under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). To say the least the judgment under appeal is totally unsustainable. Only on this short ground and without going further into the merits of the matter this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order in Second Appeal No. 609 of 1996 are set aside and the Second Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same in accordance with law after following the procedure and in the light of limited jurisdiction available under Section 100, C.P.C. As the Second Appeal is of 1996 the High Court may make it convenient to dispose of the same at the earliest.
4. No costs.
