CHHELARAM Vs. MANAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been directed against the decree/order/judgment dated 10-10-1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sojat dismissing the appellant's first appeal on the ground that it was barred by time.

(2.) Respondent Manak had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot of land situate in village Giri. Defendant-appellant in his reply claimed that the suit land was in his possession. The trial Court framed three issues.After recording evidence and hearing the parties the trial Court decreed the suit on 26-8-1994 holding that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff and it was in his possession. The defendant preferred appeal before Additional District Judge on 19-10-1994. The office reported that the appeal was time-barred. The appeal was, however, admitted subject to objection of limitation. Thereafter, vide impugned order the learned Additional Dist. Judge held that the appeal was time-barred. He, therefore, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that this appeal is not maintainable. It was contended that the impugned order/decree does not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. as the order has not conferred any statutory status affecting the rights of the parties and, therefore, it cannot be called a decree. My attention has been invited to sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 41, C.P.C. which erects a positive bar to pass any order in appeal filed without first deciding the question of limitation.