Composite Appeal Against Common Judgment In Suits By Same Plaintiff Is Maintainable: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 12) held that a composite appeal against a common judgment passed in the suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had interfered with the First Appellate Court's decision to entertain a composite appeal filed by the...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 12) held that a composite appeal against a common judgment passed in the suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment, which had interfered with the First Appellate Court's decision to entertain a composite appeal filed by the Appellant against a common judgment adjudicating two suits instituted by the Appellant (plaintiff).
“…we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The question as framed is answered by holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was maintainable in the circumstances in which it was presented. The first appellate Court rightly entertained it and adjudicated it on merits. The High Court committed an error in holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable.”, the Court observed.
The Court faulted the High Court's decision stating “if at all the High Court was of the view that a separate memorandum for each appeal was necessary for challenging the common judgment rendered in two suits filed by the same plaintiff, an opportunity to cure said deficiency ought to have been afforded to the plaintiff. The defect was not of such a nature so as to entail setting aside the judgment of the appellate Court without any adjudication on merits.”
Background
The predecessor of the appellants filed two suits, one for declaration that a registered sale deed executed by one defendant in favour of another was null and void. The other suit was for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the joint possession of the plaintiff. Both the suits were clubbed together and a common trial was held. The parties thereafter led evidence and by a common judgment dated 07.12.1990, both the suits were dismissed.
The plaintiff filed a composite appeal under Section 96 of the Code raising a challenge to the common judgment rendered in both the suits. Along with the appeal, certified copies of the judgment as well as the decrees passed in both the suits were filed. Court fees payable on two separate appeals were also paid along with the memorandum of appeal. It was prayed that the common judgment of the trial Court dismissing both the suits be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
The First Appellate Court entertained the Appellant's composite appeal; however, the High Court in a second appeal set aside the First Appellate Court's decision, for lack of filing of a separate appeal against the two decrees.
Aggrieved by the High Court's interference, the Appellants moved to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar held that the High Court erred in interfering with the First Appellate Court's decision to entertain a composite appeal against the same common judgment in both the suits.
“…we are of the considered view that the composite appeal preferred for challenging the common judgment of the trial Court deciding two suits filed by the same plaintiff was rightly entertained on merits. The judgment of the first appellate Court could not have been set aside on the ground that two separate appeals had not been filed. In any event, the lacuna, if any, of not filing a separate memorandum of appeal was curable in nature and could not be held to be fatal as the composite appeal was accompanied by both decrees passed by the trial Court.”, the Court held.
As a result, the appeal was allowed. Both the second appeals preferred by the respondents herein stand restored before the High Court for being adjudicated afresh on merits.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Section 96, Section 11, Section 151, Order XLI Rule 1 — Maintainability of Composite First Appeal against Common Judgment dismissing two consolidated suits filed by the same plaintiff — Procedural defect vs. Substantive right — Defect of Form - A single/composite appeal filed under Section 96 CPC challenging a common judgment of the trial court dismissing two consolidated suits instituted by the same plaintiff is maintainable, provided certified copies of both decrees are filed, requisite court fees payable for both appeals are paid, and a specific prayer challenging the dismissal of both suits is made - The absence of a separate memorandum of appeal for each suit is merely a defect of form and not of substance, which is curable in nature and not fatal - The right of appeal is a substantive right, and rules of procedure under the CPC, being the handmaid of justice, cannot be utilized as a sword to deprive a party of an adjudication on merits. [Paras 12-20]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11 — Res Judicata qua Common Judgment in Consolidated Suits - Where two suits filed by the same plaintiff are consolidated, tried together on common evidence, and disposed of by a single common judgment, a composite appeal challenging the common judgment and both decrees is not barred by the principle of res judicata - Res judicata applies qua a judgment and not a decree; where there is one trial, one finding, and one decision, two decrees drawn are in substance one. [Relied on Charan Singh v. Ram Saroop, Civil Appeal Nos. 1585–1586 of 2025; Narhari and others v. Shankar and others, 1950 INSC 24; P.A. Oommen v. Moran Mar Baselius Marthoma, 1992 INSC 175; Paras 14-18].
Cause Title: BASSANNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. AND OTHERS VERSUS BHIMANNA AND OTHERS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 800
Click here to download judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Arijeet Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shivanand Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Samarth Kashyap, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. Mr. Kotresh A M, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Adv. M/S. S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AOR