- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Debendra Nath Das v. Bibudhendra Mansingh
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant sought a certificate confirming that the case satisfied the requirements of section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or was otherwise fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council. [1]
The Court of first instance determined, pursuant to Order XLV, rule 5, that the amount or value exceeded Rs. 10,000. The litigation had resulted in conflicting High Court decisions: a single Judge reversed the lower Appellate Court, but a Bench of two Judges subsequently reversed the single Judge, thereby affirming the decision of the Court immediately below. [2][3]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the case satisfied the amount or value requirement under section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [1][2]
- Whether the case satisfied the requirement relating to the nature of the case, including whether it involved a substantial question of law and was fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council. [3][4]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the report of the Court of first instance that the amount or value exceeded Rs. 10,000 and found no reason to dissent from that determination. [2]
On the nature requirement, the Court held that the effective High Court judgment affirmed the decision of the Court immediately below because the single Judge’s reversal had been subsequently reversed by the Bench. [3]
The Court explained that the Code made no provision for an intra-High Court appeal from a single Judge; that right arose under clause 15 of the Charter. A single Judge was not a court subordinate to the High Court, but performed a function directed to be performed by the High Court under clause 36 of the Letters Patent. Consequently, the single Judge’s decision could not be revised under section 115 of the Code. [5][6]
Although the effective judgment affirmed the decree of the Court immediately below, the Court considered the case fit for appeal because it involved a substantial question of law and because a High Court Judge had adopted a view different from the view that ultimately prevailed. [4]
Holding and Implications
CERTIFICATE GRANTED. The Court held that, as regards amount or value and nature, the case fulfilled the requirements of section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [7]
The applicant was therefore permitted to pursue an appeal to His Majesty in Council. N.R. Chatterjea, J., concurred. [8] No broader implication is discussed, and the order did not establish a new case-law precedent.
Jenkins, C.J:— This is an application for a certificate that, as regards amount or value and nature, the case fulfils the requirements of section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure or that it is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.
To ascertain the amount or value, the matter was referred to the Court of first instance (Order XLV, rule 5). That Court has determined the amount or value and has returned its report according to which the amount or value exceeds Rs. 10,000. We see no reason to dissent from that determination.
It only remains to be seen whether as regards nature the requirements of section 110 are fulfilled. The Court of first instance as well as the lower Appellate Court decided adversely to the present applicant. On appeal to the High Court, a single Judge reversed the decree of the lower Appellate Court. From this judgment of a single Judge there was an appeal to the High Court under clause 15 of the Charter with the result that the judgment of the single Judge was reversed by a Bench of two Judges. It will thus be seen that the first judgment of the High Court reversed the decree of the Court immediately below, but that this reversal was afterwards in effect cancelled with the result that the only effective judgment of the High Court, affirmed the decision of the Court immediately below (section 110, Civil Procedure Code).
This appears to me to be the true result of the Letters Patent and the Code, for the Code makes no provision for an appeal within the High Court, that is to say, from a single Judge of the High Court. This right of appeal depends on clause 15 of the Charter.
And here I may point out that a Judge sitting alone is not a Court sub-ordinate to the High Court, but performs a function directed to be performed by the High Court (clause 36, Letters Patent). And thus no decision of a single Judge can be revised under section 115 of the Code.
But though in this view of the matter the decree of the Court immediately below has been affirmed, it will be right to grant a certificate for there is am substantial question of law involved and it makes the case all the more a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council that on the question involved, a Judge, of the High Court took a different view from that which ultimately prevailed.
The certificate sought must therefore be granted that as regards amount or value and nature the case fulfils the requirements of section 110 of the Code.
N.R Chatterjea, J.:— concurred.
G.S
Certificate granted.
Alert