SALMA Vs. SUBHASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common orders passed by the Lower Appellate Court are in challenge in revisions contending that the Lower Appellate Court is in error in finding that the appeals are not maintainable. Two appeals came in a situation where the appellant had while preferring an appeal against one order moved the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2009 that he was reserving his legal rights to file two appeals and sought the permission of the Court for allowing him to withdraw the appeal to follow the course of preferring two appeals. The Court after hearing the arguments allowed the appeal dismissed as withdrawn. When the two appeals were again filed after this order, the objection taken by the respondent which was sustained was that the Court while passing an order dated 8.6.2009 had not expressly granted the permission to file two appeals again. I find the order passed by the Court as erroneous. The Court had previously allowed the statement made by the party in person to withdraw the appeal only for the purpose of enabling the party to come up through two independent appeals. It was a case of party appearing in person and therefore when the Court passed an order, it should have applied sufficient circumspection to do so leaving no room for any ambiguity. The order was surely ambiguous. If the petitioner was not to have the liberty of filing two independent appeals when his request was for such a course, the Appellate Court could have rejected his plea and specifically slated so. There is no expression anywhere in the order that the court was rejecting his plea. When the Court was therefore dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, I would only read it that the Court was acceding to the request of the counsel that the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn only in order to file two separate appeals. No doubt, there ought to have been a specific order granting such liberty. I would understand the order as allowing for such liberty and I would not knock out a party at threshold when he wants a consideration on merits. The impugned order is set aside and the revision petitions are allowed. The appeals shall be taken back on file and will be heard and disposed of in accordance with law.