SIRAJ DIN and others vs RAJ ADA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court. The respondent-plaintiff had filed two separate suits which were consolidated and decided through a single consolidated judgment. The petitioners initially filed only one appeal against this consolidated judgment. Upon realizing that separate appeals might be required to challenge the two resulting decrees, the petitioners filed a second appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the lower appellate court as time-barred. The High Court upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment in consolidated suits satisfies legal requirements, or if such a technicality should be resolved in favor of the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court seeks to determine whether the delay in filing the second appeal should have been condoned under the relevant limitation law and whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, failed to act in aid of justice to correct the procedural error. The Court granted leave to appeal to address these significant procedural questions.
- Does filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment in two consolidated suits satisfy the requirements of law?
- Should a technical delay in filing a second appeal against a consolidated decree be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the High Court obligated to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct procedural errors in the interest of justice?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. ' The respondent-plaintiff had filed two Suits Nos. 6 and 7 of 1972. Both were consolidated and were decreed by one consolidated judgment. The petitioners filed an appeal against the one consolidated judgment. As stated by the learned counsel, during the arguments of the said appeal, it was felt that a formal separate appeal was also necessary so as to challenge the two decrees separately. The petitioners then filed another appeal which was dismissed as time-barred. Their Civil Revision also was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that their appeal before the District Court was badly time-barred. Leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine, inter alia; whether filing of one appeal against the consolidated judgment in two consolidated suits relating to same or similar subject, had not satisfied the requirement of law; if not, whether mere technical controversy should not have been resolved in favour of the petitioners. Secondly; whether even if there was a technical delay in filing the second appeal, it should not have been condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. And lastly, whether the High Court should not have in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, acted in aid of justice and should not have corrected the error.
4. ' Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to file all necessary additional documents.