BISWAJIT SUKUL versus DEO CHAND SARDA & ORS.

BISWAJIT SUKUL versus DEO CHAND SARDA & ORS.

The First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine or reverse the finding that defendant No.1 was plaintiff's tenant, as this was decided in plaintiff's favour by the Trial Court and not challenged by defendants through cross objection. The High Court erred by affirming the jurisdictional error. Appeal allowed and case remanded to First Appellate Court to decide only the issues decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court.

Parties
Appellant: Biswajit Sukul; Respondent: Deo Chand Sarda
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Order, Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Rent Arrears and Eviction, Cross Objection Under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act
Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Appeals Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Rent Arrears and Eviction Cross Objection Under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biswajit Sukul

Appellant

Deo Chand Sarda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Order, Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Appellate Court had jurisdiction to review issues not challenged by defendants without a cross objection
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred by affirming the First Appellate Court judgment without noticing jurisdictional error

Ratio Decidendi

The First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to examine or reverse the finding that defendant No.1 was plaintiff's tenant, as this was decided in plaintiff's favour by the Trial Court and not challenged by defendants through cross objection. The High Court erred by affirming the jurisdictional error. Appeal allowed and case remanded to First Appellate Court to decide only the issues decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside order and judgment of High Court and First Appellate Court
  • Remanded case to First Appellate Court to decide the plaintiff's first appeal afresh, confined to issues decided against the plaintiff by the Trial Court and within six months