Appeal at the stage of admission, needs to be admitted or rejected fully and not partly

An interesting question arose before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Executive Engineer v. Manik Panjabrao concerning the part admission of the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [CPC].

Facts

The appellants challenged the award passed by the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act,1894. By the said award, the reference court enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land, borewell as well as the standing trees therein. The award was challenged before the High Court under Section 96 of the CPC.

The High Court ordered the appeal to be admitted for enhancement of compensation concerning trees and borewell but not for land. This means the appeal was admitted in part and not completely. This order of the court was assailed in review petition.

Issue

The question before the court was whether the Court while admitting an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC can restrict the grounds on which the appeal is to be heard.

Analysis

The precise question arising in the present proceedings was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramji Bhagala Vs. Krishnarao Karirao Bagra [1982 Mh.L.J. 835] . Therein, an appeal under Section 96 of the Code was admitted insofar as certain prayers were concerned and was rejected insofar as the other prayers were concerned. It was held that such course was not permissible and the appeal could be admitted either in its entirety or could be rejected in its entirety.

Section 96 of the CPC does not warrant such an exercise because there is nothing in the section that authorises the court to accept the appeal in part. However, this does not restricts the court from rejecting certain grounds when it ultimately disposes off the appeal. Stated simply, it means the appeal at the stage of admission has to be admitted or rejected completely while the court is at liberty to reject certain grounds when the appeal is ultimately heard after admission.

Thus the order under review was contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and carried an error apparent discernible from the face of the record. Thus the order was modified and the appeal was admitted completely.