The Allahabad High Court Ruled That A Single Second Appeal Is Sufficient For Multiple Civil Appeals From One Suit, But Emphasized Adherence To Procedural Rules Like Attaching The First Appellate Court's Decree As Per High Court Rules.

Case Title:

Ramnath Singh v. Parshuram Singh & Ors.

Date of Order:

14 August 2024

Bench:

J. Kshitij Shailendra

Parties:

Appellant- Ramnath Singh
Respondent(s)- Parshuram Singh and 13 Others

SUBJECT

The case concerns Ramnath Singh's challenge to a judgment from two consolidated civil appeals arising from a single suit. Key issues include whether one second appeal is sufficient for both civil appeals and if attaching the first appellate court's decree is required. The court affirmed that a single second appeal is valid but stressed that procedural rules, including decree attachment, must be followed as per Allahabad High Court Rules.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Code of Civil Procedure, Order 41 Rule 1: Requires that an appeal be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order, but the decree need not be attached separately according to recent amendments.
2. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: Mandate the attachment of the decree from the first appellate court with the appeal.
3. Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and 2002: Simplified procedural requirements by allowing the attachment of the judgment alone without needing to attach the decree separately.

OVERVIEW

1. The case concerns a second appeal filed by Ramnath Singh against the judgments and decrees passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010. These proceedings originated from Original Suit No. 289 of 1984, where the plaintiff sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The trial court partly ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which led both parties to file separate civil appeals.
2. Dissatisfied with the partial decree, Ramnath Singh filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010, while the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010 against the unfavorable part of the ruling. Both appeals were consolidated and decided by a common judgment on March 18, 2024. In this judgment, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed entirely, leaving Ramnath Singh aggrieved by the outcome.
3. Ramnath Singh then filed this second appeal, challenging the decision of the First Appellate Court. One of the central legal questions raised in this appeal revolves around the requirement of filing separate second appeals for each civil appeal. Additionally, it questions whether it is necessary to attach a copy of the first appellate court's decree along with the second appeal.
4. The case also delves into various legal provisions, including amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and High Court Rules, to argue the validity and requirements of filing a second appeal. The appeal's outcome could clarify procedural requirements for cases involving multiple civil appeals arising from a single suit.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a single second appeal is sufficient for multiple civil appeals arising from the same original suit or if separate second appeals are required for each.
2. Whether it is mandatory to attach a copy of the first appellate court's decree along with the second appeal.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT

1. The appellant, Ramnath Singh, advanced several key arguments in this second appeal. First, the appellant argued that there is no legal requirement to file separate second appeals for each civil appeal arising out of a single suit. He contended that since both Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010 arose from the same original suit and were decided by a common judgment, a single second appeal should suffice. The appellant relied on precedents, including the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Sahai v. Daryao Kunwar [AIR 1925 All 174]and the Supreme Court's decision in Narhari v. Shankar [AIR 1966 SC 1789], to support this view.
2. The appellant further argued that attaching a copy of the decree from the first appellate court along with the second appeal is not necessary under the current law. He cited amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Order 41 Rule 1, which was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and 2002. According to these amendments, it is sufficient to file the judgment with the appeal, without necessarily attaching the decree. The appellant contended that these procedural changes were intended to facilitate justice by simplifying the appeals process.
3. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that procedural law should not be used to defeat justice. He emphasized that the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure is to consolidate and amend the law related to civil courts' procedures, and it should be interpreted in a way that furthers justice rather than obstructing it through technicalities. He argued that procedural rules are meant to aid in the fair administration of justice and should be construed liberally.
4. Finally, the appellant challenged the objection raised by the Stamp Reporting Section regarding the need for separate second appeals and the necessity of attaching the first appellate court's decree. He argued that the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure override any conflicting provisions in state laws or high court rules, including the Allahabad High Court Rules. He asserted that, according to Section 32 of the Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999, any state amendments inconsistent with the central law stand repealed, further supporting the maintainability of his single second appeal.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS

1. The respondents presented several counterarguments in response to the appellant's claims. First, they asserted that the appellant was required to file separate second appeals for each civil appeal arising from the original suit. They argued that when two separate civil appeals result in two different decrees, each decree must be challenged individually through its own appeal. The respondents emphasized that even if the appeals were consolidated and decided by a common judgment, each decree retains its own legal identity, necessitating separate appeals.
2. The respondents also contended that the appellant's failure to attach the decree from the first appellate court with the second appeal was a violation of procedural requirements. They argued that both the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court Rules mandate attaching the decree being appealed. According to the respondents, this procedural rule is essential to provide the court with a complete understanding of the case and to ensure the appeals process is properly followed. They dismissed the appellant's reliance on the amendments to Order 41 Rule 1, maintaining that these amendments do not dispense with the requirement of filing a copy of the decree. 
3. Furthermore, the respondents argued that not filing separate second appeals for each decree could lead to potential issues of res judicata. They claimed that if only one appeal is filed, it could result in conflicting judgments and legal confusion, especially if the other decree attains finality without being challenged within the prescribed limitation period. They warned that this could create complications in the execution of decrees and the enforcement of rights, as the legal standing of each decree would be uncertain.
4. Lastly, the respondents contended that the Allahabad High Court Rules, which require the attachment of the decree, still hold validity and were not overridden by the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. They argued that procedural rules and high court rules supplement the Code and do not contradict its provisions. Therefore, they asserted that the appellant's failure to comply with these procedural requirements justified the objection raised by the Stamp Reporting Section, which called for the filing of separate second appeals along with the necessary documentation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

1. The court examined two main issues: whether separate second appeals were needed for each civil appeal from the original suit and if attaching the first appellate court's decree with the second appeal was mandatory.
2. On the first issue, the court noted that the original suit resulted in two civil appeals, which were consolidated and decided by a single judgment. Citing precedents like Narhari v. Shankar and Bhagwan Sahai v. Daryao Kunwar, the court held that a single second appeal is maintainable even if separate decrees are drawn, as both appeals arose from the same original suit.
3. Regarding the requirement to attach the decree of the first appellate court, the court examined amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order 41 Rule 1. It found that while these amendments did not explicitly require attaching the decree, the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, still mandated this attachment. Since these rules supplement the Code, the court concluded that the appellant should have attached the decree.
4. The court also clarified the respondents' concern about res judicata, stating that it would only apply if there were two separate suits, not multiple appeals from one suit. Therefore, the appellant's single second appeal was deemed maintainable.
5. The court overruled the objection regarding the need for two separate second appeals, allowing a single second appeal in this case. However, it emphasized that future appeals must comply with the Allahabad High Court Rules, including attaching the decree. The case was set for further hearing on August 31, 2024.

CONCLUSION

The court concluded that when a single suit results in multiple first appeals decided by a common judgment, filing a single second appeal is sufficient. While the Code of Civil Procedure does not explicitly require attaching the first appellate court's decree, the Allahabad High Court Rules do mandate it. The appellant's single second appeal was upheld, but the court stressed the importance of following procedural requirements, including attaching relevant decrees in future cases. This judgment clarifies procedural nuances to ensure justice is not hindered by technicalities.