Appellant Should Also Challenge Decree Not Just Judgment U/S 96 CPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday highlighted that an appeal must challenge the decree passed by the original court, not just the judgment as mandated by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice Puneet Gupta emphasised that the responsibility to challenge the decree rested with the appellants and that their failure to do so within the stipulated time period could not...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday highlighted that an appeal must challenge the decree passed by the original court, not just the judgment as mandated by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Puneet Gupta emphasised that the responsibility to challenge the decree rested with the appellants and that their failure to do so within the stipulated time period could not be excused.
"... the words “Judgment” in Section 96 CPC was conspicuous by its absence meaning thereby that the decree sheet was required to be annexed with the appeal. The provisions stated above amply make out that the appellant is required to challenge the decree and not the judgment passed by the court of original jurisdiction. The legislature has purposely mentioned the word “decree” which is required to be challenged in the appeal and not the judgment."
The case revolved around an appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment dated April 5, 2016, passed by the trial court. The appellants approached the court of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Budgam, to appeal against the trial court's judgment, but their appeal was dismissed on the ground that they had challenged the judgment and not the decree as the decree sheet had not been submitted along with the appeal.
The plaintiffs/appellants contended that they were unaware of the legal requirements and had moved an application seeking to place the decree sheet on record after seven years of the appeal being pending. However, the application was rejected by the appellate court.
The respondents argued that the provisions of law necessitate the challenge of the decree and not just the judgment. The court agreed with this stance, emphasizing that Section 96 of the CPC explicitly requires an appeal to challenge the decree passed by the court exercising original jurisdiction.
The court also cited Order 20 Rule 6(A) of the CPC, which permits an appeal against a decree without filing a copy of the decree, with the copy provided by the court being treated as the decree. However, it highlighted that this provision comes with a caveat: once the decree is drawn, the judgment loses its effect as a decree for execution purposes.
Highlighting the legislative intent behind using the term "decree" in Section 96, the bench underscored that the appellant's obligation is to challenge the decree itself. It also rejected the argument that the first appellate court should have pointed out the deficiency of not challenging the trial court's decree or not submitting the decree sheet.
“The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court should have pointed out the deficiency of the decree of the trial court having been not challenged or that the decree sheet having not been placed on record is the argument which prima facie requires outright rejection. It is not for the court to advise the appellant to make necessary incorporation in the appeal”, the court said.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Nazir Ahmad Ganie and Another Vs Mohammad Amin Ganie
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 227