Appellants sought to withdraw a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against a remand order, seeking liberty to file a Miscellaneous Appeal instead. The court found the prayer fair and reasonable.
Second appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- M
‘\
U
Singk gew‘ {Civ’ggg‘if
‘. IN THEHIGH bGUKP OFV MAEHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR. £0 1 2
. hol apras ad Verna; aged h? years'S/a Late Hii‘asinghVerma ‘cult ivator,rresideht‘of> village - Khapri-gkala, 'T ah. magi idiiEttaaiFur ‘ OO ‘ Amenant/Plaintir'fX w vé. géncmyal Verima 'aged about #0 yerrs, S/o Ramlal Vermé, ‘ ‘ > cu1-tivatqf, residentiBf Raipur NagariaalikNigam I House No ;23i289,Har;dipuaa Wgra, Raiyurv at psesétlt 'l'residingat v111.pauns'ari, ‘ Post OfficeBhainsa,’ /7 ’ant : I Téb.Simga, Dist‘E’.Raipur u. Re sgondéntjBef and //
1eo)or my
MEKORANDU£0FsEcONnAPPEALUNDERSEgTIoN cqiy‘E OF GIVIL PRocEDURE
Smt.LaxmiBaiVerma,aged47 ofyeaxs, V111. Khapri-kala,Wd/oLate Verma, resident Bhola Prasad 8r, being widowof Tah.Tilda, Dlstt. Raipur (M.P.) theappellant. Verma, Kamlesh Verma S/c Late Bhola Prasadresident of vill. cultivator, appellant aged 26 years,Tah. Tilda, Distt. Raipur (M.P.) (son Khapri—kala,ofthedeceasedappellantBholaPrasadVerma. Wd/o _Smt.' Lata Verma agedresidentaboutofCivil 47 Lines,years, Baloda Kashyap, MahendraBazar, Distt. Rai ur, daughter of the deceased’ Verma. Bhola Prasad appellant Smt.PushpaVermaW/oOmprakashNayak, Tah. Tilda,aged of vill. Raikheda, resident 45 years, of the deceased appellant ‘Distt. Raipur, (daughter BholaPrasad). Smt. Kanti Verma ofagedHandi¢f§ years,Para ward,W/o KishoreRaipur, resident‘ Paikara, (NLR)(NowC.G.)
v
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SINGLE BENCH: HONVBLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL 1 Second Appeal No . 60/1992
APPELLANTS Smt. Laxmi Bai Verma and others
Versus RESPONDENT Dindayal Verma 1 { (SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)
Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the appellants“ Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Passed on 10/02/2014)
Sectiion 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would not be maintainable. He would further submit \ that the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the CPC would be maintainable. 3. Order 43 Rule l(u) CPC provides as under:— “(u) an order under rule 23 [or rule 23A] or Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court;.” 4. By impugned judgment and decree dated l3/ll/199l, the matter was remanded by the First Appellate Court, therefore, Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule l(u) of CPC would be maintainable . /7f 5. At this stage Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit i that he be‘permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file Miscellaneous Appeal.
.F-x» 7. Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. 8. Consequently, Second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Appeal.
e .‘
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable against a judgment remanding a case under Order 41 Rule 23-A.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Laxmi Bai Verma and others
Dindayal Verma
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
