THATHA Vs. PARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in this revision is as to the maintainability of an appeal wherein a carbon copy of the impugned order without a certificate in full compliance with S.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been produced. The District Judge before whom that appeal was filed has overruled the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability and that order is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The matter arose from a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court and the final decree proceedings are still pending. The 1st defendant was appointed as receiver by the Trial Court. Later, an application was filed by the plaintiff for removing the 1st defendant from receivership and to appoint another receiver from the panel of receivers. That application was dismissed by the Trial Court against which the plaintiff has preferred an appeal as C.M.A. No. 18 of 1982 before the District Court. A carbon copy of the impugned order has been produced in appeal. The defendants raised a preliminary objection in the District Court on the ground that a carbon copy is not a sufficient substitute for copy of a decree and at any rate it is not a certified copy and as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. The learned District Judge heard the preliminary objection and passed the impugned order holding that the carbon copy produced is sufficient to make the presentation of the appeal valid.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended first that the appeal should have been presented with a certified copy of the order appended with a table of costs as provided in R.186 of the Civil Rules of Practice.