Maintainability of Single Appeal: Supreme Court clarifies procedure for consolidated suits in Ramnath Exports vs. Vinita Mehta (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 July 2022

Citation: [Not Available]

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.

When two separate lawsuits are combined for trial, can a single appeal be filed against the judgment if it results in multiple decrees? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this procedural question in a case involving a property dispute. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in dismissing a first appeal because the appellant had filed a single appeal against a common judgment and two separate decrees arising from two consolidated suits. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, examined the High Court’s decision and the procedural aspects involved in appealing consolidated cases.

Case Background

The case originated from two separate suits concerning a property passage. In 1989, Vinita Mehta and another individual (respondents) filed Suit No. 411 seeking a permanent injunction against M/S Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) to prevent interference with their right to use a passage. They also sought a mandatory injunction to remove walls and restore the passage to its original width. Subsequently, in 1993, the appellant filed Suit No. 419, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from creating any passage through their property.

Due to the commonality of the disputed passage, both suits were consolidated by a consent order on 18 August 2006. The Trial Court framed common issues and disposed of both suits with a common judgment on 16 April 2008, although two separate decrees were issued on 30 April 2008. Suit No. 411 was partly decreed in favor of the respondents, while Suit No. 419 was dismissed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, aggrieved by the Trial Court’s judgment, filed First Appeal No. 50 of 2008 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed CLMA No. 4365 of 2008, seeking permission to file a single appeal against the common judgment and the two separate decrees. The High Court admitted the appeal on 18 July 2008 and directed that the CLMA be listed for disposal after a period of four weeks.

However, without deciding the CLMA, the High Court dismissed the first appeal on 04 July 2018, upholding a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a single appeal. The High Court held that separate appeals should have been filed against each decree and that the failure to do so invoked the principle of res judicata. The High Court relied on several judgments, including **Zaharia Vs. Dibia & Ors., ALR (1910) Allahabad 51**, **Narhari & Ors. Vs. Shanker & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 419**, and **Lonankutty Vs. Thomman & Anr., (1976) 3 SCC 528**, to support its decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which stipulates the procedure for filing an appeal against a decree passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction. The section states that an appeal can be filed to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such courts. The Supreme Court noted that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court and that a first appeal involves a rehearing on both law and fact.

The Court also observed that the first appellate court is required to address all issues and decide the appeal by re-appreciating the material and evidence. It must record its findings by dealing with all the issues, considering both oral and documentary evidence.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The appellant argued that it had assailed the findings of the Trial Court by mentioning both suit numbers and paying the required court fee based on the consolidated value of the suits.
• ✓ The appellant contended that the High Court had admitted the first appeal but dismissed it after a decade without considering the merits of the case.
• ✓ The appellant highlighted that the High Court had issued notice on the CLMA seeking permission to file a single appeal, but it failed to decide the application before dismissing the appeal.
• ✓ The appellant argued that the essence of res judicata is that two proceedings should be independent, but in this case, the suits were tried together and disposed of by a single judgment, thus not constituting two distinct trials.
• ✓ The appellant asserted that only one judgment was passed, and the suits were consolidated for all purposes, not merely clubbed.
• ✓ The appellant relied on the judgments in State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. B. Ranga Reddy (thru LR’s) & Ors., (2020) 15 SCC 681 and Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 624 to support their arguments.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that the appellant had unilaterally filed a single appeal and paid court fees based on the consolidated value, whereas separate court fees should have been calculated for each decree.
• ✓ The respondents stated that the appeal against the decree in Civil Suit No. 411 of 1989 should have been filed before the District Judge with a limitation of 30 days, while the appeal against the decree in Civil Suit No. 419 of 1993 lies before the High Court with a limitation of 90 days.
• ✓ The respondents contended that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 411 of 1989 had attained finality since it was not challenged within the prescribed limitation period.
• ✓ The respondents argued that the consolidation of suits was only for evidence and did not mean that one appeal could be preferred, as the suits still retain their separate identities.
• ✓ The respondents pointed out that they had raised objections to the single appeal from the day of notice, but the appellant had not rectified the defect.
• ✓ The respondents relied on the judgments in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 624, V. Natarajan Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2020 and B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarla & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 756 to substantiate their submissions.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the core issue it addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of maintainability without deciding the CLMA seeking permission to file a single appeal against a common judgment and two separate decrees passed in two consolidated suits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• ✓ Zaharia Vs. Dibia & Ors., ALR (1910) Allahabad 51 – Allahabad High Court: The High Court relied on this case to support its decision on maintainability of separate appeals.
• ✓ Narhari & Ors. Vs. Shanker & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 419 – Supreme Court of India: The High Court relied on this case, which in turn relied on the full bench judgment of Lahore High Court in Mt. Lachhmi Vs. Mt. Bhulli, AIR 1927 Lahore 289.
• ✓ Mt. Lachhmi Vs. Mt. Bhulli, AIR 1927 Lahore 289 – Lahore High Court: The High Court distinguished this full bench judgment while deciding on the issue of res judicata.
• ✓ Lonankutty Vs. Thomman & Anr., (1976) 3 SCC 528 – Supreme Court of India: The High Court relied on this case, stating that the case at hand is similar to this case, which was dismissed on the ground of res judicata alone.
• ✓ Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 624 – Supreme Court of India: The High Court relied on this case to discuss the concept of res judicata.
• ✓ State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. B. Ranga Reddy (thru LR’s) & Ors., (2020) 15 SCC 681 – Supreme Court of India: The appellant relied on this case to argue that a single appeal was maintainable.
• ✓ V. Natarajan Vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2020 – Supreme Court of India: The respondents relied on this case to argue that separate appeals should have been filed.
• ✓ B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarla & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 756 – Supreme Court of India: The respondents relied on this case to argue that separate appeals should have been filed.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• ✓ Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This section provides for filing an appeal from a decree by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such courts.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the correctness of the High Court’s findings on the applicability of res judicata. However, it observed that the findings in the impugned order would not sustain because of the non-decision of the CLMA filed by the appellant.
• ✓ The Court noted that the High Court had relied on **Zaharia Vs. Dibia & Ors., ALR (1910) Allahabad 51** and **Lonankutty Vs. Thomman & Anr., (1976) 3 SCC 528** to support its decision on res judicata, but did not comment on the correctness of this reliance.
• ✓ The Court acknowledged the High Court’s reliance on **Narhari & Ors. Vs. Shanker & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 419**, which relied on **Mt. Lachhmi Vs. Mt. Bhulli, AIR 1927 Lahore 289**, but did not comment on the correctness of this reliance.
• ✓ The Court noted that the High Court relied on **Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 624** while discussing res judicata.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse of the High Court in not deciding the CLMA application. The Court emphasized the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity to litigants to rectify procedural defects. The sentiment analysis indicates a strong emphasis on procedural fairness and the right to be heard, rather than the merits of the case or the principle of res judicata.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have decided the CLMA before dismissing the appeal. The Court noted that the High Court’s failure to decide the CLMA had caused serious prejudice to the appellant by depriving it of the opportunity to rectify the defect and be heard on merits. The Court held that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights without affording a reasonable opportunity to the litigant. The Court stated:

“In our considered view also, the approach adopted by High Court is not correct, because on dismissal of the CLMA, the appellant might have had the opportunity to rectify the defect by way of filing separate appeal under Section 96 of CPC challenging the same judgment with separate decree passed in Civil Suit No.411 of 1989.”

The Court also observed:

“It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity.”

The Court further noted:

“Therefore, in our considered view, non-adjudication of the CLMA application, and upholding the preliminary objection of non-maintainability of one appeal by High Court has caused serious prejudice to the appellant.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ When suits are consolidated and a common judgment is passed with separate decrees, it is crucial for the appellate court to address any applications seeking permission to file a single appeal before dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability.
• ✓ Procedural defects should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights without providing an opportunity to rectify such defects.
• ✓ The first appellate court should not dismiss an appeal based on preliminary objections without considering the merits of the case, especially when procedural applications are pending.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in the Indian legal system.
• ✓ This judgment clarifies the procedure for handling appeals in consolidated suits and ensures that litigants are not unfairly prejudiced by procedural technicalities.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to decide CLMA No. 4365/2008 before deciding the preliminary objection of maintainability of one appeal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a first appeal is filed against a common judgment and two separate decrees passed in two consolidated suits, and an application (CLMA) is filed seeking permission to file a single appeal, the High Court must decide the CLMA before dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights without affording a reasonable opportunity to the litigant to rectify the defect. This case does not change any previous positions of law but clarifies the procedure to be followed in such cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the High Court’s decision to dismiss the first appeal without deciding the CLMA. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have addressed the application seeking permission to file a single appeal before dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and ensures that litigants are not deprived of their right to be heard due to procedural technicalities, particularly in cases involving consolidated suits and multiple decrees.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Categories:

• Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Appeals
• Consolidation of Suits
• Res Judicata
• Procedural Law

FAQ

Q: What is a CLMA in the context of this case?

A: CLMA refers to an application filed by the appellant seeking permission to file a single appeal against a common judgment and two separate decrees passed in two consolidated suits.

Q: What does it mean when suits are “consolidated”?

A: Consolidation of suits means that two or more separate lawsuits involving similar issues are combined to be tried together, usually to save time and resources.

Q: Why did the High Court dismiss the first appeal?

A: The High Court dismissed the first appeal because it believed that the appellant should have filed separate appeals against each of the two decrees, and the single appeal was not maintainable due to the principle of res judicata.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s main concern in this case?

A: The Supreme Court’s main concern was that the High Court had dismissed the appeal without deciding the CLMA, which sought permission to file a single appeal. The Court held that this procedural lapse caused prejudice to the appellant.

Q: What is the significance of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this case?

A: Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides for filing an appeal from a decree by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such courts. This section is the basis for the right to appeal.

Q: What does the Supreme Court’s judgment mean for future cases?

A: The judgment clarifies that appellate courts must address applications seeking permission to file a single appeal in consolidated suits before dismissing appeals on maintainability grounds. It emphasizes procedural fairness and the right to be heard.