VINITA M. KHANOLKAR versus PRAGNA M. PAI AND ORS.

VINITA M. KHANOLKAR versus PRAGNA M. PAI AND ORS.

Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act does not expressly bar an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction; thus, such an appeal is maintainable.

Parties
Appellant: Vinita M. Khanolkar; Respondents: Pragna M. Pai and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 960 of 1994
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appealability Under Specific Relief Act Section 6, Letters Patent Appeals, High Court Original Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Appealability Under Specific Relief Act Section 6 Letters Patent Appeals High Court Original Jurisdiction

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

Vinita M. Khanolkar

Appellant

Pragna M. Pai and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 960 of 1994

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court against an order of a Single Judge rendered in proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act does not expressly bar an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original jurisdiction; thus, such an appeal is maintainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment and order of the High Court in Appeal No. 960 of 1994 are set aside.
  • The appeal is restored to the file of the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.