The Delhi High Court dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC. The court held that no appeal lies against an order dismissing a review application under Section 114, as it is merely procedural and does not affect rights requiring substantive adjudication.
The second appeal was dismissed with no costs to the appellant.
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.
$~21
ALI ABBAS ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
CM No.27000/2018 (for exemption)
RSA 101/2018 & CM No.27001/2018 (for stay)
Page 1 of 2
RSA 101/2018
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 11, 2018 ‘gsr’..
Page 2 of 2
RSA 101/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC lies against an order dismissing a review application under Section 114 of the CPC which does not decide any substantive matter requiring appeal.
Whether no appeal lies against an order of dismissal of a review under Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Mool Chand SharmaReferred¶20
2013 (135) DRJ 705 (DB)
AJS Builder Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harvinder SinghReferred¶20
2014 SCC OnLine Del 3592 · Who else cites this
Garibani Devi Vs. StateReferred¶20
2017 SCC OnLine Del 9367 · Who else cites this
Ramvati Vs. Sukhbir Singh ChauhanReferred¶20
2018 SCC OnLine Del 9632 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Nazma Begum
Ali Abbas
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Parties & counsel
