The Supreme Court has held that a composite appeal challenging a common judgment passed in two suits filed by the same plaintiff can be maintainable when the suits were clubbed, tried together and decided through common evidence and a common judgment.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that where the appellant has challenged both decrees, paid the requisite court fees and filed the certified copies of both decrees, the absence of separate memoranda of appeal is a curable procedural defect.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff. The first suit sought a declaration that a registered sale deed concerning the property was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The second suit sought a permanent injunction against interference with the plaintiff’s possession.
The two suits were clubbed together by the trial court after an application by a common defendant. Common evidence was recorded, and both matters were decided through a common judgment dated December 7, 1990, dismissing the suits.
The plaintiff thereafter filed one composite appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the dismissal of both suits. Importantly, the appeal was accompanied by certified copies of both decrees, and court fees payable for challenging both decrees were paid. The appellate court entertained the appeal and ultimately decreed both suits.
The Karnataka High Court later set aside that decision, holding that two separate appeals were required because two separate suits had originally been filed.
Supreme Court's Observations
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach.
The Bench noted that the suits had been consolidated, common evidence had been recorded and a common judgment had been delivered. The plaintiff had also specifically challenged the judgment and decrees in both suits and complied with the financial and documentary requirements for an appeal.
The Court referred to Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, which permits the appellate court to dispense with filing more than one copy of a judgment when two or more suits have been tried together and decided through a common judgment. It found that the necessary requirements for challenging the common judgment had otherwise been fulfilled.
The Bench drew a distinction between defects affecting the substance of an appeal and defects concerning its form.
“The deficiency was more of ‘form’ and not of ‘substance’,” the Court observed, adding that such a deficiency was curable and did not make the composite appeal non-maintainable.
The Court further stressed that the right of appeal is a substantive right and should not be defeated merely because of a procedural defect. It said that courts should ordinarily adjudicate disputes on their merits rather than terminate proceedings for curable procedural shortcomings.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that separate appeals may still be necessary in different circumstances. For instance, where two different plaintiffs have filed separate suits, or where a suit and a counter-claim require independent challenges, separate appeals may be required.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the composite appeal filed under Section 96 CPC was maintainable in the circumstances of the case.
It set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated September 2, 2022, passed in RSA Nos. 3214 and 3215 of 2007. The two second appeals were restored before the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Supreme Court clarified that it had not examined the parties’ substantive claims and directed that the second appeals be decided independently on their merits.
The civil appeals were accordingly allowed, with the parties left to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Bassanna Since Deceased By LRs v. Bhimanna & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 9923-9924 of 2026
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: August 12, 2026
-300x169.webp)
