Ramji Bhagala v. Krishnarao Karirao Bagra And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion reviews a judgment dated October 5, 1979 of S.K. Desai, J., in which an appeal was admitted only in respect of certain prayers (a(i), a(ii), and (c)) and rejected in respect of other prayers (b) and an enquiry for mesne profits. A Division Bench had affirmed Justice S.K. Desai’s order. The present opinion considers the correctness of that approach and determines the appropriate procedural course for the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Code of Civil Procedure permitted the High Court to admit an appeal in part (as to some prayers) and reject it in part (as to other prayers), on the basis of any recent amendment.
2. If partial admission/rejection was not supported by the Code of Civil Procedure, what order should be passed regarding the admission or rejection of the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• Mr. Bhandare, learned Advocate for the respondents, pointed out that there had been a proposal to introduce Clause 12-A in Order 41 to provide for admission of an appeal as to a part, but that clause did not appear to have been enacted and included in the statute.

General Position Noted by the Court

• No amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing partial admission and partial rejection of an appeal was brought to the Court’s notice by counsel for the parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined Justice S.K. Desai’s stated basis for admitting the appeal only in respect of certain prayers while rejecting it in respect of others. It found that the learned Judge appeared to have acted on an assumption that a “recent amendment” to the Code of Civil Procedure permitted such partial admission and partial rejection of an appeal.

The Court determined that no such amendment existed in the Code of Civil Procedure, and further noted that counsel for the parties had not brought any such amendment to its attention. While the respondents’ counsel highlighted that there had been a proposal to insert Clause 12-A in Order 41 to enable admission of an appeal “as to a part,” the Court observed that this proposed clause did not seem to have been incorporated into the statute.

Given the absence of a statutory basis for the procedure adopted, the Court concluded that the orders affirming and implementing partial admission/rejection could not stand. The proper course was to remit the matter so that the High Court could consider the appeal in the legally permissible manner—either admit it in entirety or reject it in entirety.

Holding and Implications

SET ASIDE AND REMANDED: The Court set aside (i) the order of the Division Bench affirming the order of Justice S.K. Desai and (ii) the order of Justice S.K. Desai, and remanded the appeal to the High Court to decide whether the appeal should be admitted wholly or rejected wholly.

Costs: There was no order as to costs of the present appeal.

Implications: The direct effect is that the partial admission and partial rejection of the appeal (including rejection relating to prayer (b) and the enquiry for mesne profits) is undone, and the High Court must reassess admission of the appeal on an all-or-nothing basis. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications beyond this remand, and it does not set out any new precedent.