2004 JTR(SC) 444
2004 19 AIC 801 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 3325 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 3102 ; 2004 2 AllCJ 2066 ; 2004 56 AllLR 240 ; 2004 6 ALT(SC) 63 ; 2004 2 ApexCJ(SC) 137 ; 2004 3 AWC 1957 ; 2004 6 BomCR(SC) 822 ; 2004 2 CivCC 568 ; 2004 3 CTC 378 ; 2004 ILR(Kar) 3199 ; 2005 1 ISJ(Banking) 20 ; 2004 3 JCR(SC) 174 ; 2004 3 JLJR(SC) 157 ; 2004 5 KarLJ 590 ; 2004 3 KLT(SN) 104 ; 2004 3 MhLJ(SC) 1 ; 2004 3 MPLJ 1 ; 2005 1 MPWN 85 ; 2004 3 PLJR(SC) 266 ; 2004 2 PLR(SC) 13 ; 2004 5 Scale 100 ; 2004 7 SCC 337 ; 2004 3 SCR 1039 ; 2004 KHC 1390 ; 2004 3 Supreme 444
2004(3) Supreme 444
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar, JJ.
MGMT of M/s. Devi Theatre -Appellant
versus
Vishwanath Raju -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2582-2583 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11458-11459/2003)
Decided on 8-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, P. Devesh, Ms. Savithri Pandey, P.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.N. Bhat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Admission of appeal, subject to condition of deposit of some given amount is not envisaged in Section 96 or Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
Act Referred :CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.96
(A) The appeal pertains to the admissibility and conditions attachable to a first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court. Section 96 CPC confers jurisdiction to appeal from decrements of original civil courts, and Order 41 Rule 11 CPC governs the procedure for admission of such appeals. The High Court, while exercising discretion to admit an appeal that prima facie merits consideration, cannot impose a condition mandating deposit of a specified sum as a prerequisite to admission, since such a condition is neither provided for nor justified by the merits of the case or the nature of the appeal. Interim relief or stay orders may attract conditions, but not the conditional admission of a first appeal on monetary deposit.
(B) Key legal principles include: an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies from every decree of a court of original jurisdiction; the High Court has jurisdiction to examine both facts and law; admission of an appeal may be denied at the threshold if it lacks merit; conditioning admission of a first appeal on the deposit of money is not legally sustainable and compounds a procedural infirmity; conditions may be imposed only for interim relief or stay, not for admitting the appeal to merits.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court admitted the appeal subject to the condition that the appellant deposit Rs. 75,000 within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The required deposit was not made, and an application for extension of time remained undisposed of. Consequently, the High Court passed an order declaring the appeal dismissed for non-deposit.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the conditional order of admission was erroneous because Section 96 CPC does not contemplate conditioning admission on deposit of money. The court clarified that while interim relief or stay during pendency of the appeal may attract conditions, the conditional admission itself is not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file for disposal on merits without the deposit condition.
Issues:
Whether a High Court can condition the admission of a first appeal under Section 96 CPC on the deposit of a specified sum of money.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 11 CPC does not authorize conditioning the admission of a first appeal on the deposit of money; such a condition is legally impermissible, and the appeal must be decided on its merits without the monetary precondition.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order imposing a deposit condition is set aside, and the first appeal is restored to the file of the High Court for expeditious disposal on merits without any condition.
(A) The appeal pertains to the admissibility and conditions attachable to a first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court. Section 96 CPC confers jurisdiction to appeal from decrements of original civil courts, and Order 41 Rule 11 CPC governs the procedure for admission of such appeals. The High Court, while exercising discretion to admit an appeal that prima facie merits consideration, cannot impose a condition mandating deposit of a specified sum as a prerequisite to admission, since such a condition is neither provided for nor justified by the merits of the case or the nature of the appeal. Interim relief or stay orders may attract conditions, but not the conditional admission of a first appeal on monetary deposit.
(B) Key legal principles include: an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies from every decree of a court of original jurisdiction; the High Court has jurisdiction to examine both facts and law; admission of an appeal may be denied at the threshold if it lacks merit; conditioning admission of a first appeal on the deposit of money is not legally sustainable and compounds a procedural infirmity; conditions may be imposed only for interim relief or stay, not for admitting the appeal to merits.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court admitted the appeal subject to the condition that the appellant deposit Rs. 75,000 within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The required deposit was not made, and an application for extension of time remained undisposed of. Consequently, the High Court passed an order declaring the appeal dismissed for non-deposit.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the conditional order of admission was erroneous because Section 96 CPC does not contemplate conditioning admission on deposit of money. The court clarified that while interim relief or stay during pendency of the appeal may attract conditions, the conditional admission itself is not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file for disposal on merits without the deposit condition.
Issues:
Whether a High Court can condition the admission of a first appeal under Section 96 CPC on the deposit of a specified sum of money.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 11 CPC does not authorize conditioning the admission of a first appeal on the deposit of money; such a condition is legally impermissible, and the appeal must be decided on its merits without the monetary precondition.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order imposing a deposit condition is set aside, and the first appeal is restored to the file of the High Court for expeditious disposal on merits without any condition.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Karnataka on which the following order was passed :
"Admit subject to the condition the appellant depositing Rs. 75,000/- within a period of eight weeks, failing which the appeal stands dismissed without further orders."
3. It appears that the amount as required to be deposited was not deposited. The application which was moved for extension of time remained undisposed of. The impugned order passed showed that since the deposit has not been made the inevitable consequence was that the appeal stood dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Court in first appeal extends to examine the questions of facts as well as that of law. It is though true as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC it would be open for the court to dismiss the appeal in limine at the time of admission but even examining the matter from that point of view we find that the court while considering the question of admission of appeal filed under Section 96 CPC, may admit the appeal if considered fit for full hearing having prima facie merit. Otherwise, if it finds that the appeal lacks merits it may be dismissed at the initial stage itself. But admission of the appeal, subject to condition of deposit of some given amount, is not envisaged in the provision as contained under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. The deposit of the money would obviously have no connection with the merits of the case, which alone would be basis for admitting or not admitting an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC. Further, imposition of condition that failure to deposit the amount, would result in dismissal of the appeal compounds the infirmity in the order of conditional admission.
5. It is a different matter, in case the appellant prays for stay of the execution of the decree or for any order by way of an interim relief during the pendency of the appeal, it is open for the court to impose any condition as it may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Otherwise imposing a condition of deposit of money subject to which an appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits, is not legally justified and such order cannot be sustained.
6. In the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court in so far it imposes condition of deposit in admitting the appeal is set aside. The order of admission of the first appeal in High Court would be treated without condition of deposit. It is, however, clarified that it would be open to the High Court to impose any condition including for deposit of any amount, in case any kind of interim relief is granted during pendency of the appeal. Consequently, the first appeal stands restored to the file of the court which shall be considered and decided on merits expeditiously.
No costs.
Appeal allowed.
****************
00031