Karnataka High Court: In an appeal under Section 96 CPC, directed against the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in O.S. No. 10/2014, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession; and cancellation of documents, a two-Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Patel and S. Sujatha, JJ. held that a High Court is empowered to dismiss the first appeal at the preliminary stage of hearing if there is no merit in the appeal.
Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants. Plaintiffs also claimed for cancellation of the relinquishment deed made by the plaintiffs in favor of the defendants relinquishing their right, title and interest of the joint family properties. The High Court held, that the evidence put forth by the defense proves that plaintiffs have executed the relinquishment deed, on their own will and volition. Thus, the joint family status of defendants and plaintiffs was severed and the relief of partition and separate possession needs to be rejected. As regards relief to cancel the relinquishment deed, the court held, that the plaintiffs failed to prove that it was an outcome of fraud, coercion and undue influence; and hence, it was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the litigant have a right to be heard on facts and law in first appeal and the same cannot be disposed of in limine at the time of the admission.
The Court quoted and discussed Section 96 CPC along with Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the same Court in Sri T.S. Channegowda v. Sri H. Thopiah, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 8184 : ILR 2015 kar 2809, to hold that the object of providing a statutory appeal is to examine whether the trial court has erred in deciding the cases. It does not mean that in every case the appeal has to be admitted. The High Court also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Sheo Narain Kushwaha, (2011) 6 SCC 456, to hold that the High Court is empowered to dismiss the first appeal at the preliminary stage of hearing if there is no merit in the appeal. The said dismissal should be supported by reasons while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
After considering all the documents and evidence produced by learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case. No error was found in the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The High Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal. [Smt. Lakshminarasamma v. Sri Lakshmana, Regular First Appeal No. 502/2017, decided on 21.07.2017]
The High Court had passed a proper Judgment in Appeal Case Dismissed of Appeal in very Short time Of 3 to 4 Months is an appropriate time . When the Appeal is Meritless the High Court empowered to dismissed with cost on the day first hearing .
Here is a Appeal case C C C A No 233 OF 2016 The High Court HYDERABAD
Instead of Dismissed the Appeal the day first hearing and or Other hearing
date , inspite of submitting short argument and that the Appeal is Meritless and the grounds filed against
a Judgement and Preliminary Decree passed by the 1X Addl Chief Judge Hon’ble Court in Suit O S 19 OF 2003 on 15/06/2016 . The High
Court Hon’ble Justice’s are purely Corrupted or under what Influence
They are working . when the Judgment Order itself Speak That the Appeal is Meritless and of Fraud . Only to Harassed the Respondent No 1 / Plaintiff in the said Partition Suit The Registrar Judicial and Staff is Corrupt and the Appeal Section Staff is corrupt.
And The Hon’ble Chief Justice High Court Staff is Corrupt . I make application to Expedite hearing date awaiting . The Advocate Mir Wajid Ali Kamil for the Appellants . And the other
Respondents are not parties . But here
the Respondent No 6 Advocate Osman
Sheed came on Record and being A Senior Advocate he is involved in with the Appellants Advocate and Creating
Rape Allegations Riots And Communal
Riot’s and other nature harassment to
Plaintiff/ Respondent No 1 in the said
Appeal Case from more than Two
Decades , That the State Police is interfering to Partition of properties against to The Hon’ble Court Judgement and Preliminary Decree Order dated 15/06/2016 .
I humbly Submits this matter as complaint please forward to All High Courts of INDIA ,and I need urgent Monetary help .
Respondent No 1
Mohd Murtaza Ali
P I P
Mobile No : 8978786160 /
9703339441