REETHA Vs. PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Conflicting administrative directions issued by this Court as to the necessity for producing a copy of the decree along with the Memorandum of Appeal have placed the litigants and their counsel in a quandary. The difficulty is encountered very often and hence I heard Mr. K.A. Salil Narayanan, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. G. Unnikrishnan, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. This is an application to condone the delay of 705 days in re-presenting the Regular Second Appeal after curing the defects which included the failure to produce the copy of the decree along with the memorandum. The Registry of this Court has taken a stand that the Regular Second Appeal cannot be numbered unless the memorandum is accompanied by the original and appellate decree. The Court Fee Examiners and Section Officers have been cautioned that only the Court can dispense with the production of the decree for a Regular Second Appeal to be numbered. The time consumed for obtaining the decree of the Trial Court in the instant case has resulted in the delay in re-presenting the Regular Second Appeal of which condonation is sought.

(2.) An appeal would lie under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'CPC for short) only from the original decree and not from a judgment as is evident by the scheme of the statutory provisions. Section 96 of the CPC is as follows:

(3.) The decree shall agree with the judgment and it shall contain inter alia the particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit under Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act No. 46 of 1999) has brought in provisions regarding the preparation of the decree as well as the availability of the copies of the judgments. Rules 6A and 6B of Order XX of the CPC are as follows: