P.V. Anitha vs Naduvile Veettil Asok Kumar

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This unnumbered matter is sent up noticing it as defective. It is filed as an appeal invoking Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order passed on an original petition filed before the Munsiff''s Court u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. An appeal is provided for against such an order, under that Act. No appeal lies against such an order u/s 96 CPC. The application from which this appeal arises could have been filed before the Munsiff''s court only by recourse to Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act, in terms of which, the State Government has invested other courts with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge. Appeal against an order on such an application would lie only under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 388 of that Act. An appeal under that proviso, against an order passed by a court inferior to the court of a District Judge but invested with the power by the State Government by notification, would lie only to the District Judge. The jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal is not to be considered on the basis of any pecuniary limit.

For the aforesaid reasons, this matter filed as an RFA u/s 96 before the High Court is not maintainable. In the result, this unnumbered RFA is rejected without prejudice to the right of the appellant to move the appropriate court by an appeal under the proviso to section 388(2), if aggrieved by the impugned order.

In view of the rejection of this appeal, let the certified copy of the impugned order be returned to the appellant and any court fee paid on this appeal be refunded. It is open to the appellant to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the appropriate court in the event of there being any delay in instituting the appeal against the impugned order.