Kempaiah ( Dead ) by LRs Vs. Doddanaraiah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4088 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4088 of 1999)
Petitioner: Kempaiah ( Dead ) by LRs
Respondent: Doddanaraiah & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4088 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4088 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 13, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Practice and Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of jurisdiction of High Court – Such jurisdiction being a limited one an order passed in disregard of the procedure prescribed by Section 100 cannot be sustained in law.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Practice and Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of jurisdiction of High Court – Such jurisdiction being a limited one an order passed in disregard of the procedure prescribed by Section 100 cannot be sustained in law.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1.Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, who are the only contesting respondents being the plaintiffs in whose favour decree for injunction was passed by the Second Appellate Court.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge who decided the Second Appeal, with respect, has not kept in view the limited jurisdiction available to him under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure
( C.P.C. ).
4. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. R.S.A. No. 794 of 1993 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the par-ties, keeping in view the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. and after following the procedure laid down therein.
5. No costs.
1.Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3, who are the only contesting respondents being the plaintiffs in whose favour decree for injunction was passed by the Second Appellate Court.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge who decided the Second Appeal, with respect, has not kept in view the limited jurisdiction available to him under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure
( C.P.C. ).
4. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. R.S.A. No. 794 of 1993 is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to re-decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the par-ties, keeping in view the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. and after following the procedure laid down therein.
5. No costs.
