The Supreme Court has upheld the maintainability of a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alongwith the requisite court fee raising a challenge to a common judgment of the Trial Court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff when certified copies of the decrees passed in both the suits were filed and the court fees payable for challenging both the decrees was also paid.

The Apex Court was considering the issue of whether a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raising a challenge to a common judgment of the trial Court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable when certified copies of the decrees passed in both the suits were filed along with the said appeal, a prayer for dispensing with filing of more than one certified copy of the common judgment was made and the court fees payable for challenging both the decrees was also paid.

Holding that res judicata would apply only qua a judgment and not a decree, the Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “In the present case, as the plaintiff had challenged the common judgment and decrees passed in the two suits filed by him in a composite appeal, the bar of res judicata would not be attracted. A specific challenge having been mounted to the common judgment by raising numerous grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the appeal was liable to be entertained on merits notwithstanding the fact that it was a composite appeal filed along with requisite court fees, certified copies of the common judgment and both the decrees. Thus, even on this count, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited.”

“For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. The question as framed is answered by holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was maintainable in the circumstances in which it was presented. The first appellate Court rightly entertained it and adjudicated it on merits. The High Court committed an error in holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable”, it added.

Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu S. Patil represented the Appellant while Advocate Sharanagouda Patil represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The predecessor of the appellants filed two suits, one for a declaration that the registered sale deed executed by one defendant in favour of another was null and void. The other suit was for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the joint possession of the plaintiff. Both the suits were clubbed together and a common trial was held. The parties thereafter led evidence and by a common judgment, both the suits were dismissed. The plaintiff filed a composite appeal under Section 96 of the Code raising a challenge to the common judgment rendered in both the suits. Along with the appeal, certified copies of the judgment as well as the decrees passed in both the suits were filed. Court fees payable on two separate appeals were also paid along with the memorandum of appeal. It was prayed that the common judgment of the trial Court dismissing both the suits be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and decreed both the suits. Two second appeals filed by the defendants were allowed by the Karnataka High Court on the ground that since two separate suits had been filed before the Trial Court, it was necessary for the unsuccessful plaintiff to have filed two separate appeals under Section 96 of the Code. Considering that a composite appeal was filed, the High Court allowed the second appeals and set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court. Both the suits were dismissed leading to the filing of the appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the clubbing of two or more suits is usually undertaken by the trial Court in case the parties to the proceedings are common, the subject matter of the suits is similar or for other analogous reasons. “Clubbing of proceedings is usually for the convenience of parties contesting the same so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, delay in adjudication as well as expenses incurred therein”, it added.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Trial Court having clubbed both the suits, considered the common evidence led by the parties and thereafter by its common judgment dismissed both the suits. It specifically directed that copy of the common judgment be preserved in the second suit. The Bench explained that the proviso to Order XLI Rule 1(1) of the Code empowers the appellate Court to dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment of the trial Court whenever two or more suits are tried together and a common judgment is delivered.

It was further noticed that the requisite court fees payable for challenging the common judgment and decrees in both suits was also paid by the plaintiff. As per the Bench, the prayer made in the memorandum of appeal was clear seeking setting aside of the common judgment in both the suits. The composite appeal was filed along with certified copies of the common judgment and decrees passed in both suits.

“It can, thus, be seen that all necessary requisites for challenging the common judgment of the trial Court were satisfied by the unsuccessful plaintiff. The requirements of Order XLI Rule 1 (1) and (2) of the Code were fully complied with and the composite appeal as filed was complete in all respects. All statutory requirements were satisfied by the plaintiff while preferring an appeal under Section 96 of the Code”, it stated.

The Bench was of the view that the deficiency, if any, was the absence of a separate memorandum of appeal for each appeal and the deficiency was curable and did not render the composite appeal not maintainable.Further noting that the deficiency in the composite appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was more in its ‘form’ than ‘substance’, the Bench held that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the plaintiff to cure the deficiency which merely required presentation of an additional memorandum of appeal.

Thus, holding that the composite appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code was maintainable, the Bench restored the second appeals preferred by the respondents before the High Court for being adjudicated afresh on merits.

Cause Title: Bassanna Since Deceased by Lrs. v. Bhimanna and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 838)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Basava Prabhu S. Patil, AOR Anirudh Sanganeria, Advocates Arijeet Shukla, Shivanand Lahiri, Samarth Kashyap

Respondent: Advocate Sharanagouda Patil, AOR Supruta Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate Kotresh A. M., AOR M/s S-legal Associates, AOR Siddhartha Sinha

Click here to read/download Judgment




Tags: