Skip to content


Chondana Gopala Vs. Chondana Monnappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberR.S.A. No. 357 of 1985
Judge
Reported inILR1986KAR994
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100 - Order 41 and 41A, Rule 3
AppellantChondana Gopala
RespondentChondana Monnappa
Advocates:Janardhana, Adv.
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
.....the memorandum of appeal is mandatory requirement of section 100 c.p.c. order 41a of the code of civil procedure makes the provision of order 41 of the code of civil procedure applicable to second appeal also. failure to do so brings in application of order 41 rule 3 c.p.c. - section 5 & karnataka essential commodities (public distribution system) control order, 1992, clauses 4,5 & 11: [n.k. patil, j] distribution of essential commodities to card holders - setting up of fair price depots for purpose of held, under clause 11(2) of the control order, the authorised dealers/holders are entitled to hold minimum of 300 cards. in some exceptional cases, the number of cards can even be reduced to 200 cards as provided under proviso to control order,1992. in the instant case, it is not the..........that, substantial question of law was not formulated as required by section 100 of the code of civil procedure. there were other defects also noticed by the office of this court. the papers were returned on 11-3-1985 for needful being done. the appeal was represented on 8-4-1985 stating that needful had been done. the office found that the substantial question of law had not been formulated. hence it re turned the papers on the very day. the appeal was again re-presented on 27-5-1985 stating that needful had been done. even then, it was found, and it is a fact, that the substantial question of law has not been formulated. to formulate substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal is mandatory requirement of section 100 c.p.c.2. thus, in view of the above, it is seen that.....
Judgment:

Nesargi, J.

1. When the memorandum of this appeal was presented, it was found that, substantial question of law was not formulated as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There were other defects also noticed by the Office of this Court. The papers were returned on 11-3-1985 for needful being done. The appeal was represented on 8-4-1985 stating that needful had been done. The Office found that the substantial question of law had not been formulated. Hence it re turned the papers on the very day. The Appeal was again re-presented on 27-5-1985 stating that needful had been done. Even then, it was found, and it is a fact, that the substantial question of law has not been formulated. To formulate substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal is mandatory requirement of Section 100 C.P.C.

2. Thus, in view of the above, it is seen that right from 11-3-1985 up-till 27-5-1985 this objection has not been removed though the papers had been returned on three occasions. Order 41(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure makes the provision of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to Second Appeal also.

3. The facts narrated in the preceding paragraph squarely bring into application of Order 41 Rule 3 C.P.C. Hence the memorandum of appeal is rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //