PADMANABHAN Vs. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a kudikidappukaran. The first respondent, landlord, filed an application under S.77 of Act I of 1964 praying for shifting of the kudikidappu. The claim was opposed by the tenant on several grounds including the question of res judicata. He contended that the present shifting application would not lie in view of an earlier application which was dismissed.

(2.) The Land Tribunal overruled this preliminary objection and held that there was no bar of res judicata. The petitioner filed an appeal under S.102 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved, this revision is filed.

(3.) The short question raised is whether an appeal is maintainable against a preliminary order passed under S.77(2) of the Act. S.102 of the Act provides that any -person aggrieved by any order of the Land Tribunal under sub-s.(2) of S.77 may appeal against such order. S.77(2) states that the Land Tribunal, after such inquiry as it deems fit, and on being satisfied that the applicant has complied with all the conditions specified in S.75, "may pass an order requiring the kudikidappukaran to shift the kudikidappu before such date as may be specified in the order."