9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the second appeal against the order dated 9.10.2002. 2. Maintainability of the appeal against the order dated 3.11.2006 dismissing the review application. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Second Appeal Against the Order Dated 9.10.2002: The first issue addressed was whether a second appeal challenging the order dated 9.10.2002 is maintainable after the earlier appeal was withdrawn without permission to file a fresh appeal. The court noted that the appellants did not seek permission to file a fresh appeal when they withdrew the earlier appeal on 10.1.2003. According to Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, if a plaintiff withdraws a suit without the court's permission, they are precluded from instituting any fresh suit on the same subject matter. This principle applies equally to appeals. Therefore, the second appeal challenging the order dated 9.10.2002 is not maintainable. 2. Maintainability of the Appeal Against the Order Dated 3.11.2006 Dismissing the Review Application:The second issue was whether an appeal against the order dated 3.11.2006, which dismissed the review application, is maintainable. Order 47 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly provides that an order rejecting a review application is not appealable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben, which stated that an order refusing a review does not qualify as a "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Consequently, no appeal against an order dismissing a review application is maintainable either under the Civil Procedure Code or under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The court also cited several precedents, including Basant Kharbanda vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and Green View Tea & Industries vs. Collector, Golaghat, which supported the view that an appeal against an order rejecting a review application is not maintainable. The court concluded that the subsequent appeal against the orders dated 9.10.2002 and 3.11.2006 is not maintainable. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed. However, considering the concession made by the respondent during the hearing of the review application, the court directed that the concession shall remain binding upon the respondent for eight weeks. If the appellant allots one of the three semi-structured shops and the tin shed to the respondent within eight weeks at the market rate, it would be sufficient compliance with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. If the appellant fails to do so, the order dated 9.10.2002 would come into force and must be complied with by the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of.
|
