SHRI JAGAT SINGH Vs. SHRI ELUMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower court records have been produced before this Court pursuant to our order dated 09.01.2012. As submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears from the lower court records, that two suits were filed being O.S. No. 6 of 1998 and T.S. No. 9 of 1998. Both the suits were heard analogously, but the decree was passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1998 (heard analogously with T.S. No. 9 of 1998). It appears from the records that the Other Appeal No. 12 of 2008 was filed challenging the decree passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1998. The learned advocate for the appellant submits rightly that no separate decree was drawn up in respect of the Title Suit No. 9 of 1998. It appears, however, that Title Appeal No. 22 of 2010 came into existence which arose out of Title Suit No. 9 of 1998. It appears that Title Appeal No. 22 of 2010 was originally numbered as Title Appeal No. 11 of 2008. But, subsequently, it was renumbered as Title Appeal No. 22 of 2010, as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant. Both the appeals were heard together by the learned lower appellate court and decree was drawn up in respect of Title Appeal No. 22 of 2010. But, no separate decree was drawn up in respect of Other Appeal No. 16 of 2010. However, the said learned advocate submits that only one memorandum of appeal has been filed before this Court which he says is a comprehensive one and such memorandum of appeal has challenged the judgment and decree passed in both the appeals which were decided by the learned lower appellate court. Thus, the said learned advocate submits that only one decree was passed by the learned trial court and also only one decree was passed by the learned lower appellate court even though two suits have been decided by the learned trial court and two appeals were decided by the learned lower appellate court.

(2.) This, it appears to this Court, is a mistake committed by the learned courts below which needs to be corrected by the learned courts below. The learned trial court concerned should now draw up the decree in respect of the said Title Suit No. 9 of 1998 and the learned lower appellate court should also draw up the decree in respect of Other Appeal No. 16 of 2010. After such mistake is rectified and the respective decrees are drawn up by the respective learned courts below, the appellant in the present second appeal should be permitted to file an appropriate memorandum of appeal, if the appellant so intends, before this Court challenging the decree concerned. If the appellant finds that in this process the question of limitation will arise the appellant will be at liberty to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay, if any, stating the relevant facts in such application.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, the lower court records should be sent back immediately to the learned courts below concerned to enable the learned courts below to draw up their respective decrees, as already indicated above. If the appellant herein applies for obtaining certified copies of such decrees, then in that event, such certified copies should be supplied to the appellant as expeditiously as possible without causing any unnecessary delay. The learned courts below will draw up their respective decrees, as indicated above, as early as possible.