VASANTHAKUMARI Vs. GEORGE SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the execution court rejected the claim petition under O.21, R.102. As per R.102 the order passed deemed to be a decree for the purpose of appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate court confirmed the order, against which the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) O.21, R.103 is similarly worded as is in O.21, R.58(3) of the C.P.C. Interpreting the said provision the Division Bench of this Court in Anto Mamkoottam v. Peruvanthanam Service Cooperative Bank ( 1996 (2) KLT 962 ) held that a further second appeal will lie against the order passed under O.21, R.58(4), even though there is no specific reference to further appeal incorporated in that section. The same view was taken in Ghasi Sahu and Another v. Himachal Sahu & Anr. (AIR 1986 Orissa 170) and Mohammed Jameel Ahmed Ansari v. Ishrath Sajeeda and Others (AIR 1983 AP 106). The Apex Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. & Anr. ( AIR 1998 SC 2730 ) considered a similar question arising under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (4 of 1983). In para 6 of the judgment it is held as follows:

(3.) The principle is that once it is deemed to be a decree it will not revert back after the appeal. Once it is deemed to be decree as contemplated under O.21, R.103 then after the appellate order it will not revert back and it will continue to be a deemed decree and therefore appealable. In the above circumstances, the defect noticed is sustained.