KOLLIPARA SREERAMULU Vs. PENURAUDI SURYANARAYANA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This second appeal is preferred
by the third defendant against certain
observations made against him in A S No.
93 of 1988 by the lower appellate court
confirming the findings of the trial court.
Admittedly, no decree is sought for by
the plaintiff against the third defendant
nor was any decree granted by the trial
court against him. Aggrieved by the
decision of the trial court, the third
defendant preferred an appeal and that
appeal was dismissed.
(2.)Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure lays down that an appeal
shall lie to the High Court from any
decree passed in an appeal by any court
subordinate to the High Court. When
there is no decree as such passed against
the third defendant, the provisions of
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for interfering
with the judgment.
(3.)If, as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant, there are some
unnecessary observations made against
the third defendant which are not based
upon any pleadings or evidence, the
third defendant should take steps to get
those remarks expunged from the judgment.
In the absence of any decree being granted against the third defendant either by
the trial court or the lower appellate
court, I hold that the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
cannot be invoked by the third defendant
to set aside mere observations or findings
made in the judgment of the lower court
or the appellate court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.