Supreme Court rules composite appeal against common judgment is maintainable

The case concerns whether a single composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a common judgment rendered in two separate civil suits filed by the same plaintiff is maintainable. The core issue is whether the High Court erred in setting aside the first appellate court's judgment on the technical ground that two separate appeals should have been filed instead of one.

Petitioners: Bassanna (since deceased) by Lrs. and others; Respondents: Bhimanna and others; Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

• The Court held that the composite appeal challenging the common judgment of the trial court in two suits filed by the same plaintiff was rightly entertained on merits.
• The Court ruled that the judgment of the first appellate court could not be set aside on the ground that two separate appeals had not been filed.
• The Court determined that any lacuna regarding the filing of a separate memorandum of appeal was curable and not fatal, as the composite appeal was accompanied by both decrees and requisite court fees.
• The Court noted that the defendants did not object to the composite appeal before the first appellate court and contested the proceedings on merits.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document