Supreme Court rules composite appeal against common judgment 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.

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

What the court decided

• 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.

Also in the document

• The trial court had clubbed the two suits together and recorded common evidence, resulting in a single common judgment dismissing both suits.
• The first appellate court allowed the composite appeal and decreed both suits, but the High Court set this aside on technical maintainability grounds.
• The Court emphasized that the composite appeal included certified copies of both decrees and court fees calculated for both suits, supporting its maintainability.