TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

1. Introduction 1-1
2. Procedure related to Appeals 1-2
3. First Appeal 2-6
4. Second Appeal 6-7
5. Appeal from Orders 7-8
6. Appeals by Indigent Persons 8-9
7. Appeals to Supreme Court 10-11
8. Conclusion 11-11

1
 ABBREVIATIONS

1. S.C. Supreme Court

2. V Versus
3. & - And
4. u/s Under section
5. CPC Civil procedure code
6. St. State
7. Ss. - Sections

2
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The main aim of the project work is to evaluate the

procedure relating to the right to appeal under the C.PC
under the headings of first and second appeal. The context
in which this has to be seen is the fact that the procedure
relating to the appeals may well be called the
continuation of the suit itself. The effort would be to
analyse the various provisions in this background.

3
INTRODUCTION

Any person who feels aggrieved by any decree or order of the court may prefer an appeal in
the superior court if the appeal is provided against that decree or order. A right to appeal is
not a natural or an inherent right. An appeal is a creature of the statute and there is no right of
appeal unless it is given clearly and in express terms. It is a vested right and accrues to the
litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences.
The expression appeal has not been defined in the code, but it may be defined as the
judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of an inferior court1. It
means removal of a cause from an inferior to a superior court for the purpose of testing the
soundness of the decision of the inferior court. It is thus a remedy provided by law for getting
the decree of the lower court set aside. In other words, it is a complaint made to the higher
court that the decree passed by the lower court is unsound and wrong. The right to appeal
must, at this juncture, be compared and distinguished from a right to file a suit. As said, the
right to appeal is a statutory right and any such right must have the express authority of a law.
The right to sue or to file a suit is, however, an inherent right and no express authorization
from any statute may be required to institute a suit. It is enough that no statute expressly bars
the institution of such suit.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the following are the provisions relating to the right of
appeal:
Sections 96-112 and Orders 41 to 45.
1. First appeals: Ss. 96-99A, 107 and Order 41.
2. Second Appeals: Ss. 100-103, 108 and Order 42.
3. Appeals from orders: Ss. 104 -108 and Order 43.
4. Appeals to the Supreme Court: Sections 109, 112 and Order 45.
5. Appeals by indigent people: Order 44.
It is in the background information provided here that the aspect of an appeal being a
continuation of the suit will be examined.
Scope and Limitation.
The scope of this work is that it looks into the matter of appeals related procedure under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thought the procedure related to the appeal is extensive and
each provision by itself deserves to get an independent look, it is beyond the scope of this
work to do so. The scope of the work is limited to the aspect of the overall framework
whereby it may be evident that an appeal may be called a continuation of an appeal. The
researcher admits that the project cannot be called exhaustive about the matter covered due to
limitation of time and capacity.

PROCEDURE RELATED TO APPEALS.

The appeal being the continuation of the suit is held not without any reason; it may be
examined in the light of the following propositions:

1
Thakker, C.K., Civil Procedure Code, 3rd Edition, Eastern book Company, Lucknow, 1994, p - 260

4
 1. The appellate court has all the powers and has to do all those things necessary that a
trial court has and has to do. In this sense, even when the case goes on appeal, it is just
the name that has undergone a change; the form and substance still remain the same.
2. In the same vein as above, the appellate court has to do all that has been done by the
trail court in that particular case, and then either agree or disagree from the trial court.
3. Hence, even the appellate court has to write a judgement and pass a decree. In the event
of the court upholding the lower courts decision, the appellate court may write down
the same decree, without changing it, and the decree will now be deemed to have been
that of the appellate court.
4. Finally, the suit is not deemed to be finally concluded for matters of res judicata till
the appeals are over. This implies that it is deemed that the same suit is progress even
while the appeals are on. It is only when the courts have finally come to a conclusion,
after all possible appeals have been used and tried by the appellant, that the suit is said
to have been conclusively decided.
The above said propositions point out, in essence, what is implied when it is said that the
appeal is a continuation of the suit. The various provisions relating to the appeals have
already been stated in the introduction to this work. A detailed look into these provisions at
this juncture becomes pertinent.

FIRST APPEALS
As already stated in the introduction, the provisions relating to the first appeals are sections
96-99A, 107 and order 41. Section 96 of the code recognizes the right to appeal from every
decree passed by any court of original jurisdiction. It does not enumerate the persons capable
of appealing. Two conditions have to be fulfilled before an appeal may be filed under this
section:

1. The subject matter of an appeal is always a decree; an appeal is allowed only after a
decree has been passed, which implies the conclusive determination of the suit.
2. The party appealing must have been adversely affected by such determination.

The ordinary rule is that only a party to a suit adversely affected to by the decree or any of his
representatives in interest may file an appeal. But a person who is not a party to the suit may
file an appeal, only if the court has granted special leave, provided that he is either bound by
the decree or order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it. The case of Adi
Pherozshah v. H.M. Seervai2, the court observed that the test to see whether a person is
aggrieved or not is to see whether he has a genuine grievance because an order has been
made which prejudicially affects his interests either pecuniary or otherwise. Similarly, a
person who has waived his right to appeal or agrees not to appeal loses his right to appeal.
The right to appeal is also lost if the court to which the appeal lies is abolished and no court is
substituted in its place.
Section 96(2) provides for an aggrieved party against whom an ex parte decree has been
passed to file an appeal against such decree. Under clause 3 of the section, an appeal against a
consent decree has been prohibited, and very justifiably so for obvious reason. A final decree

2
AIR 1971 SC 385

5
owes its origin to the preliminary decree3, therefore a failure to appeal against a preliminary
decree precludes a person for filing an appeal against the final decree4.
As stated above, sections 96-99A enact the substantive law as regards First Appeals, while
order 41 lays down the procedure relating to thereto. The expressions appeals and
memorandum of appeal denote two different things. The appeal is the judicial examination by
a higher court of the decision of the inferior court. The memorandum of appeal contains the
grounds on which the judicial examination is invited. The order lays down the requirements
that have to be complied with for validly presenting an appeal5.
Rule 2 precludes the appellant to urge, except with the leave of the court, any grounds of
objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal. Where the memorandum of appeal is
not in the proper form, the court may reject it or return to the appellant for the purpose of
making amendments6. Under the provision of Rule 3A, where an appeal has been presented
after the expiry of the period of limitation specified therefor, it should be accompanied by an
application that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the said
time. This rule was inserted during the 1976 Amendment Act to give effect to the
recommendation of the Privy Council7.
Rule 5 provides for the stay of execution of decree or order. After an appeal has been filed,
the appellate court may order stay of proceedings under the deree or execution of such
decree. But mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the operation of the decree; the
following grounds must be satisfied before the court may grant a stay:

1. the application has been made without any unreasonable delay,

2. substantial loss will result to the applicant unless such order is made, and
3. Security for the due performance of the decree or order has been given by the
applicant.

Rule 11 deals with the power of the appellate court to summarily dismiss an appeal. This rule
embodies a general principle that whenever an appeal is preferred, the appellate court is
entitled to reject the appeal summarily, after hearing the appellant, if no prima facie substance
exists. Where an appeal raises triable, it should not summarily dismiss the suit. A case on this
aspect is Mahadev Tukaram v. Smt Sugandha.8 In this case, a will was executed by an old
man of 80 years. Although he was literate, the will bore his thumb impression and not his
signature. No other document bearing his thumb impression was produced to support the
reason that thumb impression was taken because his hand was shaky. Out of the six attesting
witnesses, only two were examined. The evidence of the doctor was also not convincing. The
trial court held the will as genuine and the matter on appeal to the High Court was dismissed
summarily. On second appeal the court held that the High Court was not justified in
dismissing the appeal summarily, since the first appeal had triable issues.

3
SUPRA Note 1, p - 265
4
http://www.lawnotes.in/Section_97_of_Code_of_Civil_Procedure,_1908
5
ibid
6
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/order41-rule2-code-of-civil-procedure.htm
7
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/order41-rule3A-code-of-civil-procedure.htm
8
AIR 1972 S.C. 1932

6
Rule 16 says that the appellant has the right to begin, just like in the case of an original suit
wherein the plaintiff has the right to begin. If the appeal is not dismissed summarily, then the
court shall hear the respondent against the appeal and the appellant then be entitled to reply.
Like in the case of the original suit, if the plaintiff does not appear for the hearing, the case
may be dismissed, so is the case during the appeal too. If the appellant does not appear when
the appeal is called for hearing, the court may dismiss the appeal in default. The same result
ensues in the case of the non-payment of the process fee by the appellant, similar to that of
the situation of the original suit. Under rule 19, the appeal may be restored after being
dismissed if the appellant files for such action and shows sufficient cause.
As is the case with the original suit, if the respondent does not appear but the appellant does,
the court may proceed ex-parte.9 If the case goes in the favour of the appellant, the
respondent may apply for the rehearing of the appeal. If he is able to satisfy the court that he
had sufficient cause for not having appeared for the scheduled hearing, the court may accept
the application.10 However, ordinarily the court should not pass an ex-parte decree except on
reliable evidence.
Again, as in the case of the original suit, where joinder of parties is allowed, so in the case of
an appeal respondents may be added under the provisions of rule 20. Where it appears to the
appellate court at the hearing of the of the appeal that any person who was a party to the suit
in the trial court but who has not been made a party to the appeal is interested in the result of
the appeal, the court may adjourn the hearing of the appeal and direct such person be joined
as a respondent. The object of this rule is to protect parties to the suit who have not been
made respondents in the appeal from being prejudiced by modifications being made behind
their back in the decree under appeal.
Section 107 and rules 23-29 and 33 of the order 41 specify the powers of the appellate court
while hearing first appeals. Section 107(1) (a) and rule 24 enables the court:
1. To dispose off a case finally.
2. The general rule is that the case should, as far as possible, be disposed of on the
evidence on record and should not be remanded for fresh evidence.
3. Where the lower court has omitted to frame any issues, or to try any issue or to
determine any question of fact which may be essential to the right decision of the suit
upon merits, the appellate court may frame issues and refer them for trial to the lower
court and shall direct that lower court to take the additional evidence required.
4. The lower court shall try such issues and shall return the findings and the evidence to
the appellate court within the time fixed by the higher court.11

Section 107(1) (b) and Rule 23 and 23A talk about the remand of the suit. Remand means to
send back. Where the trial court has decided a suit on a preliminary point without recording
the findings on other issues and if the appellate court reverses the decree so passed, it may
send back the case to the trial court to decide other issues and determine the suit. This is
called remand. By passing an order of remand, the appellate court directs the trial court to

9
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/order17-rule2-code-of-civil-procedure.htm
10
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/order41-rule21-code-of-civil-procedure.htm
11
http://www.shareyouressays.com/114345/legal-provisions-of-section-107-of-code-of-civil-procedure-1908-
c-p-c-india-powers-of-appellate-court

7
reopen and retry the case. The case of Kalipad Dinda v. Kartick Chandra,12 the court
observed that the order for a remand can be made only if the following conditions are
satisfied:
1. The suit must have been disposed of by the trial court on a priliminary point. A point may
be called a preliminary point if it is such that the decision thereon in a particular way is
sufficient to dispose of the whole case, without the necessity for a decision on the other
points. Preliminary points may be questions of limitation or res judicata.
2. The decree must have been reversed under the appeal.
3. Other grounds available under Rule 23A.

In this case, suit for declaration of title was dismissed by the trial court, which disbelieved the
evidence. In appeal, the court passed an order for remand for the trial court to rehear the suit
giving opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. Against this order of remand, the
defendant filed a revision under Section 115. The preliminary objection was raised as to the
maintainability of the revision application on the ground that the appeal ought to have been
filed against the order passed by the appellate court. The court held that the revision
application is maintainable since the remand was made under the inherent powers of the court
under Section 151 of the code, and not under Order 41, rule 23. Hence, for this kind of an
order, only revision is allowed and not an appeal.
As a general rule, the appellate court shall decide an appeal on the evidence lead by the
parties before the trial court and should not admit additional evidence for the purpose of the
disposal of the suit. Section 107(1)(d), however, empowers an appellate court to take
additional evidence to require such evidence to be taken subject to the conditions laid down
in Rule 27 of the Order 41. They are as follows:

1. Where the lower court has improperly refused to admit evidence which ought to have
been admitted,
2. Where such additional evidence was not within the knowledge of the party or could
not, after exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the lower
court passed the decree, or
3. Where the appellate court itself require such evidence to pronounce judgment or for
any other substantial cause.

A very important provision is Section 107(2) of the Code, which says that apart from the over
and aforesaid powers, an appellate court has the same powers as an original court. This
provision is based on the general principle that an appeal is continuation of a suit and
therefore, an appellate court can do, while the appeal is pending, what the original court could
have done while the suit is pending. This aspect has been looked into in the leading case
of Praduman Kumar v. Virendra.13 The facts of the case were as follows.

12
AIR 1977 Cal. 3.
13
AIR 1969 SC 1349.

8
The respondent in this case obtained permanent tenancy rights from the appellant in a piece
of land. Later the respondent transferred his tenancy rights to another person. Upon the non
payment of the rent for 2 years, the appellant, the owner of the land, filed a suit for a decree
for ejectment and for the recovery of the arrears in rent in the court of the City Munsiff. The
respondents prayed that they should be given relief against the forfeiture of their tenancy
rights under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial judge held that the
conditions relating to deposits in the Court of rent of arrears, interest thereon, and costs of the
suit were not complied with and decreed the plaintiffs claim. In appeal to the District court,
the tenant offered to clear all the possible dues and the costs. The court held that since the
tenant was willing to pay the amount, he should be given the benefit of Section 114. The
second appeal to the case was summarily dismissed by the High Court. The case went on to
appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant contested that the court having the jurisdiction to
grant reprieve against the forfeiture lies with the court of the first instance and the second,
that the Trial court having given the tenants the opportunity to pay all the amounts, it was
beyond the power of the appellate court to give a second opportunity to them.
The Supreme Court negativing this contention held that there is no bar to the jurisdiction of
the appellate court in deciding the matter as it did, and hence the appeal was dismissed. It was
observed that the appellate court has all the powers as the trial court in deciding the matter
conclusively.

SECOND APPEALS
The preceding part of this chapter dealt with the provisions of the code, which deal with the
first appeals. First appeals are the appeals that go from the court where the original suit was
first filed and the decree passed. If either of the parties to the first appeal is not satisfied even
with the decree of the court of first appeal, they may prefer second appeal to the appropriate
court. This then becomes the second appeal of the suit. Order 42 of the code deals with the
provision relating to the second appeal. The provision provided for is very simply put in the
code, holding that all the provisions that apply to the first appeal, so far as may be required,
be applicable to the second appeal too.
However, Section 100 of the code, dealing with the substantive part of the code, holds that
the court of second appeal may take up a case on second appeal only on a question of law.
Any question of fact may not form part of the inquiry of the court. In the case of Durga
Chowdharani v. Jawahir Singh14, the court had observed that there is no jurisdiction to
entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous findings of fact, however gross the error
may seem to be.
In this case the appellant, widow of a certain person, filed a suit against the elder brother of
her late husband to have a decree passed in her favour declaring her to be the heiress to her
husbands property, which was being claimed by the elder brother, the respondent. The
appellants right to the property depended upon her proving the fact that there had been a
partition of the family property and therefore, the elder brother had no claim to it. The
respondent contested this claim. The appellant tried to argue that the lower courts had not
looked into the available evidence properly, and hence it amounted to defect in the procedure
of law, therefore appealable to the higher court in the second appeal. The court in this case

14
17 I.A. 122.

9
held that an erroneous finding of the facts is a different thing from an error or defect in the
procedure. This implies that however gross the defect might be in the finding of the facts, it
cannot be construed as compelling the court of second appeal to deal with a question of fact.
Accordingly, the appeal in this case was dismissed.
Section 103 of the code provides that the High Court may, if the evidence on record is
sufficient, determine any question of fact necessary for the disposal of the appeal, provided
that the matter had not been determined by the lower appellate court or which has been
wrongly determined by such court by reason of any illegality, omission, error or defect such
as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 100.15 However, this section does not empower
the High Court to frame questions of facts on issues that had not been raised at all in the
lower Court.
Section 102 of the code says that no appeals are allowed from any suit of the nature
cognisable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the
original suit does not exceed Rs. Three thousand. Effectively, this section bars second appeals
from what may be called petty cases. The bar operates if two conditions are satisfied:

1. The suit was cognisable by a court of small causes;

2. The amount of the subject matter does not exceed three thousand rupees.

Thus, a double test has to be satisfied; the nature of the controversy and the value of the suit.

APPEALS FROM ORDERS

SECTIONS 104 to 108 and Order ,43 deal with appeals from orders. They state that certain
orders are appealable. No appeal lies against other orders. But those orders can be attacked in
an appeal from the final decree. They also provide for the forum of an appeal

The word "Order" has been defined as "the formal expression of any decision of a civil court
which is not a decree"'. Thus, an adjudication of a court which does not fall within "decree" is
an "order"

The Code has made certain orders appealable. Appeals can be filed only against those orders
which are made appealable. No appeal lies from other orders.

An appeal shall lie from the following order as provided by section 104 and order 43:

1. An order awarding compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or

defence. (Section 35-A). Such appeal, however, is limited to two grounds, namely:
a. No such order could have been made; or
b. An order for less amount ought to have been made.
2. An order refusing leave to institute a suit against public nuisance. (Section 91)
3. An order refusing leave to institute a suit in case of breach of trust. (Section 92)
4. An order awarding compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on
insufficient grounds. (Section 95)

15
http://www.legalblog.in/2011/01/second-appeal-under-code-of-civil.html

10
 5. An order imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in civil prison of any
person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree.
6. An order returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court. (Order 7 Rule 10)
7. An order rejecting an application (in appealable cases) to set aside the dismissal of a
suit for default. (Order 9 Rule 9)
8. An order rejecting an application (in appealable cases) to set aside an ex parte decree.
(Order 9 Rule 13)
9. An order dismissing a suit or striking out defence for non-compliance with an order
for discovery. (Order 9 Rule 13)
10. An order objecting to the draft of a document or an endorsement on a negotiable
instrument. (Order 21 Rule 34)
11. An order setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. (Order 21 Rule 72, 92)
12. An order rejecting an application to set aside orders passed ex parte in execution
proceedings. [Order 21 Rule 106(1)]
13. An order refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. (Order 22 Rule 9).
14. An order giving or refusing to give leave to continue a suit by or against an assignee.
(Order 22 Rule 10)
15. An order rejecting an application (in appealable cases) to set aside the dismissal of a
suit for not furnishing security for costs within time. (Order 25 Rule 2)
16. An order rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person. (Order
33 Rule 5 or 7)
17. An order in an interpleader suit for costs of the plaintiff where the defendant in
interpleader suit sues the plaintiff in another court (Order 35 Rule 3), or for costs and
discharge of the plaintiff in an interpleader suit. (Order 35 Rule 4 or 6)
18. An order to deposit money or other property, or to furnish security, or fresh security
for appearance of the defendant (Order 38 Rule 2 or Rule 3) or for attachment of
property before judgment. (Order 38 Rule 6)
19. An order granting or refusing to grant interim injunction. (Order 39 Rule 1 or 2)
20. An order for attachment of property or detention of a person disobeying an order of
injunction. (Order 39 Rule 2-A)
21. An order discharging, varying or setting aside injunction. (Order 39 Rule 4)
22. An order for deposit of money or other thing in court or for its delivery to the person
entitled. (Order 39 Rule 10)
23. An order for appointment of receiver. (Order 40 Rule 1)
24. An order for attachment and sale of property of defaulting receiver. (Order 40 Rule
41)
25. An order refusing to restore an appeal dismissed for default f appearance by appellant.
(Order 41 Rule 19)
26. An order refusing to rehear an appeal heard ex parte. (Order 41 Rule 21)
27. An order of remand (in appealable cases). (Order 41 Rule 23 or 23-A)
28. An order granting an application for review. (Order 47 Rule 1)

APPEALS BY INDIGENT PERSONS

As discussed above, Order 33 deals with suits by indigent persons. Order 44 deals with
appeals by indigent persons. The provisions of Order 44 are subject in all matters to the
provisions of Order 33 insofar as they are applicable.

11
Who may Appeal: Any person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay court fee
required for the memorandum of appeal, may present an application accompanied by a
memorandum of appeal, and may be allowed to appeal as an indigent person.
Before the Amendment Act of 1976, certain restrictions were imposed on the right of an
indigent person to prefer an appeal under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1. It provided that the court
shall reject the application to appeal in forma pauperis, unless it is shown that the decree is
contrary to law, or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust.
Those restrictions were considered to be unjust, unfair, discriminatory and without any
rational basis. The Law Commission, therefore, recommended that the said provisions be
deleted. The said recommendation of the Law Commission was accepted and, accordingly,
sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 was deleted. The present position is that an indigent person may also
file an appeal on all the grounds available to an ordinary person. An indigent person can also
file cross-objections.16

Inquiry: Rule 3 provides that where the appellant was allowed to sue as an indigent person in
the trial court, no fresh inquiry is necessary if the applicant files an affidavit to the effect that
he has not ceased to be an indigent person since the date of the decree appealed from.
However, if the government pleader or the respondent disputes the truth of the statement
made in such affidavit, an inquiry into the question as to whether or not the applicant is an
indigent person shall be held by the appellate court, or under its order by an officer of that
court.
Where it is alleged that the applicant became an indigent person after the date of the decree
appealed from, the inquiry into the means of the applicant shall be made by the appellate
court or under its order by an officer of that court or by the trial court if the appellate court
considers it necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Power and duty of Court: At the stage of hearing of an application, the question to be
considered by the court is whether the applicant is an indigent person. If he is, the application
will be allowed and the memorandum of appeal will be registered. If he is not, the application
will be rejected.

Payment of Court Fees: Rule 2: The rejection of an application for leave to appeal as an
indigent person does not ipso facto result in the rejection of the memorandum of appeal filed
along with the application. It only means that the court is not satisfied about the claim of the
applicant that he is an indigent person and nothing more. Rule 2 empowers the court to grant
time for payment of court fees when the application for leave to appeal as an indigent person
is rejected.

The period of limitation for presenting an application for leave to appeal as an indigent
person to the High Court is sixty days and to other courts is thirty days. The limitation starts
from the date of the decree.

Letters patent appeal: There is a difference of opinions as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal
lies against an order granting or refusing to grant leave to appeal as an indigent person. The
majority opinion, however, is that an appeal is maintainable against such orders. The
expression "appeal" as used in Order 44 is very wide and comprehensive and includes a
Letters Patent Appeal. The phrase "any person entitled to prefer an appeal" takes within its
sweep not only the persons who are entitled to prefer an appeal as a right but also the persons
who can file an appeal with the leave of the Court.

16
Thakker, C.K., Civil Procedure Code, 6th Edition, Eastern book Company, Lucknow, p 530.

12
APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT

Appeals to Supreme Court are governed by the Provisions of Articles 132, 133 and 134-A of
the Constitution of India with regard to civil matters. Subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order in a civil proceeding of a High Court, if the High Court certifies that

(a) The case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) In the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court.17

Sections 109 and 112 read with Order 45 deal with appeals to the Supreme Court.

CONDITIONS: SECTION 109, ORDER 45 RULE 3

An appeal would lie to the Supreme Court under Section 109 of the Code only if the
following conditions are fulfilled:
a. A judgement, decree or final order must have been passed by the High Court,
b. A substantial question of law of general importance must have been Involved in the
Case.
c. In the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court.

(a) Judgment, decree or final order

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court only against a judgment, decree or final order of the
High Court. A judgment, decree or final order against which an appeal can be preferred to the
Supreme Court must be one which purports to put an end to the litigation between the par-
ties. No certificate can be granted in respect of an interlocutory order. The test whether the
order is final or not will not depend on whether the controversy is finally over, but whether
the controversy raised before the High Court is finally over or not.

(b) Substantial question of law of general importance

An appeal would lie to the Supreme Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a
substantial question of law of general importance. The expression substantial question of law
of general importance has not been defined in the Code, but it is clear that the High Court can
grant certificate under Section 109 only when it is satisfied that question of law involved in
the case is not only substantial but also of general importance. In other words, the substantial
question of law must be such that, apart from the parties to the litigation, the general public
should be interested in determination of such question by the Supreme Court, e.g., it would
affect a large number of persons or a number of proceedings involving the same question.
Therefore, if the question is settled by the Supreme Court, the application of the principle to
the facts of a particular case does not make the question a substantial question of law of
general importance.

(iii) Need to be decided by Supreme Court

It is not sufficient that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance,
but, in addition to it, the High Court must be of the opinion that such question needs to be

17
Id, p - 531

13
decided by the Supreme Court. The word needs suggests that there has to be a necessity for a
decision by the Supreme Court on the question, and such a necessity can be said to exist
when, for instance, two views are possible regarding the question and the High Court takes
one view of the said views. Such a necessity can also be said to exist when a different view
has been expressed by another High Court.

CONCLUSION.

The preceding sections showed that the courts have wide ranging powers in matters of appeal
cases. This is specially the case of the first appeals, where the courts have almost identical
powers as that of the court of original trial jurisdiction. As mentioned above, section 107 of
the code recognises the principle that an appeal is, in effect, a continuation of the suit. It
would be pertinent to have a recapitulation of the main propositions upon which such a
principle finds basis. They are:

1. The appellate court has all the powers and has to do all those things necessary that a
trial court has and has to do. In this sense, even when the case goes on appeal, it is just
the name that has undergone a change; the form and substance still remain the same.
2. In the same vein as above, the appellate court has to do all that has been done by the
trail court in that particular case, and then either agree or disagree from the trial court.
3. Hence, even the appellate court has to write a judgement and pass a decree. In the event
of the court upholding the lower courts decision, the appellate court may write down
the same decree, without changing it, and the decree will now be deemed to have been
that of the appellate court.

The above three propositions have been dealt with in details in the forgoing sections and
hence do need any further elucidation.
The important point to bear in mind when it comes to making a statement to the effect that an
appeal is a continuation of the suit is that it is more in the interest of justice and adherence to
the principles of fair trial that these provisions ought to be seen. No doubt that the right to
appeal is not an inherent right and has to be mandated by the law, yet it is not that a very
technical and mechanical view has to be taken into account.

14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. C.K.Takwani, Civil Procedure Code, 3rd Edition, Lucknow, Eastern Book Company,
1996
2. C.K.Takwani, Civil Procedure Code, 6th Edition, Lucknow, Eastern Book Company.
3. D.V.Chitaly, AIR Commentaries: Civil Procedure Code (Nagpur: All India Reporter
Limited, 1972).
4. M.S.Mehta, A Commentary on The Code of Civil Procedure (Allahabad: Wadhwa
and Company, 1990).
5. P.M.Bakshi, Supplement to Mullas Code of Civil Procedure (14th ed., Bombay:
N.M.Tripati Private Limited, 1992).
6. T.L.Venkatarama Ayiar, Mulla on The Code of Civil Procedure (13th ed., Bombay:
N.M.Tripathi Private Limited, 1967).
7. www.lawnotes.in
8. www.lawzonline.com
9. www.legalblog.in
10. www.shareyouressays.com

15