The Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 100 CPC against a decree in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, holding the appeal non-maintainable due to the statutory bar.
Instant appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010121332020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/136/2022
EMPIRE AND SINGLO TEA LIMITED
(PRESENTLY KNOWN AS APEEJAY SURENDRA CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND PREVIOUSLY IT WAS KNOWN AS SINGLO INDIA TEA COMPANY LIMITED). A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APPEJAY HOUSE, 15 PARK STREET, KOLKATA AND A OFFICE AT SUFFRY, CHARAIDEO AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI SOMNATH NANDI, MANAGER, SUFFRY TEA ESTATE, P.O. SUFFRY, DIST.- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689.
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF ABDUL SUBHAN, HIS LEGAL HEIRS MUSSTT. SAJIDA HAQUE AND 2 ORS W/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN
/O- RANGA PATHAR GAON, ABHAYPUR, P.O. SUFFRY, DIST.- CHARAIDEO, PIN- 785689.
2:MD. SAMIM AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- RANGA PATHAR GAON ABHAYPUR P.O. SUFFRY DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689. 3:MD. SABIR AHMED S/O- LATE ABDUL SUBHAN R/O- RANGA PATHAR GAON ABHAYPUR P.O. SUFFRY DIST.- CHARAIDEO PIN- 785689
Advocate for the Petitioner : S N SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
07.09.2022
Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant.
This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.10/2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed in Title Suit No.34/2006 (new) 36/1988 (old) was affirmed.
The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that this is a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Taking into account that the suit was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, there is a bar in preferring an appeal against such judgment passed in such proceedings. Under such circumstances, the appeal so filed being Title Appeal No.10/2018, on the face of it, was not maintainable.
Consequently, the instant appeal so filed under Section 100 of the CPC is also not maintainable.
In that view of the matter, the instant appeal stands dismissed as there arises no substantial question of law.
Taking into account that the said judgment passed in Title Suit No.34/2006 is a judgment in a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the appellant would be at liberty to prefer a suit based on title subject to the same being permissible as per law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable against a decree in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Empire and Singlo Tea Limited (Apeejay Surendra Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. formerly Singlo India Tea Company Limited)
Musst. Sajida Haque (Legal Heirs of Abdul Subhan)
Md. Samim Ahmed
Md. Sabir Ahmed
Devashis Baruah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
