Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Manorama Thampuratti vs C.K. Sujatha Thampuratti and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 10 January 2000 · Citation: AIR 2000 SC 3400 : (2000) AIRSCW 1731 : (2000) 2 JT 285 : (2001) 4 SCALE 367 : (2000) 9 SCC 233 : (2000) 4 Supreme 444

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. B. Majmudar, J · D. P. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 100
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 2908 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15812 of 2000)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 181 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally with their consent.

3.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court while deciding the second appeal has not kept in view the limited jurisdiction conferred on it u/s 100 of the CPC, nor has it framed substantial questions of law for its decision. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not effectively combat this contention. A mere look at the impugned Order shows that the High Court has allowed the second appeal and remanded the proceedings without strictly following the procedure laid down u/s 100 of the CPC. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and Order of the High Court are set aside. Second Appeal No. 7 of 1998-A is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same in accordance with the limited jurisdiction conferred u/s 100 of the CPC after following the procedure laid down therein. No costs.