P. Ram Reddy vs Jatling Rajeswar Rao

G. Rohini, J.—The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2007 in A.S. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Warangal, under which the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, dated 14.10.2003 in O.S. No. 514 of 1999 was reversed.

The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 514 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 17,000/-allegedly due from the defendant/appellant herein together with interest at 2% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the decretal amount. The said suit was dismissed with costs by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 14.10.2003. Challenging the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs. 17,000/- with costs together future interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

Though various grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant on merits, the learned Counsel for the respondent at the outset, raised an objection as to the maintainability of the second appeal.

The learned Counsel contended that in view of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal lies from the decree under challenge, since the value of the subject-matter of the original suit was less than Rs. 25,000/-.

Section 102 of the CPC may be extracted hereunder:

No second appeal in certain cases.--No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees

A plain reading of the above provision shows that the right of second appeal is not available where the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. In the case on hand, admittedly, the suit is for recovery of money with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,000/-. Thus, the bar u/s 102 of the CPC is attracted and, consequently, no second appeal can be maintained.

However, the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant vehemently contended that though the principal amount due was only Rs. 17,000/-, as per the decree granted by the lower Appellate Court, a further sum of Rs. 8,160/- was also decreed towards interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the suit and thus the value of the second appeal is Rs. 25,160/-, till the date of presentation of the second appeal. Thus, it is contended that the bar u/s 102 of the CPC does not apply.

8 On a careful consideration of the language employed in Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that it is the character of the suit as originally framed and presented that will determine the nature of the subject-matter of the original suit within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since, admittedly, the suit claim was less than Rs. 25,000/-, I am of the opinion that the defendant cannot maintain the second appeal. I am also not inclined to permit conversion of the second appeal into a revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the matter does not involve any question of Jurisdiction.

For the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.