Kollipara Sreeramulu vs Penumudi Suryanarayana and Others

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.—This second appeal is preferred by the third defendant against certain observations made against him in A.S. No. 93 of 1988 by the lower appellate court confirming the findings of the trial court. Admittedly, no decree is sought for by the plaintiff against the third defendant ncr was any decree granted by the trial court against him. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the third defendant preferred an appeal and that appeal was dismissed.

Section 100 of the CPC lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decree passed in an appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court. When there is no decree as such passed against the third defendant, the provisions of Section 100 of the CPC cannot be invoked for interfering with the judgment.

If, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there are some unnecessary observations made against the third defendant which are not based upon any pleadings or evidence, the third defendant should take steps to get those remarks expunged from the judgment. In the absence of any decree being granted against the third defendant either by the trial court or the lower appellate court, I hold that the provisions of Section 100 of the CPC cannot be invoked by the third defendant to set aside mere observations or findings made in the judgment of the lower court or the appellate court.

As observed already the third defendant, if so advised, can take steps for getting expunged the observations made against him.

With the above observations, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.