Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)Narayanan vs Kumaran & Ors on 16 March, 2004
3. When the appeal is taken up for hearing Advocate Shri
G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents raised a
preliminary objection that the substantial questions of law raised in this case
cannot be considered. It is argued that in an appeal against remand under Order
XLIII Rule 1(u) of CPC this Court can consider the correctness of the point
remanded for reconsideration. It is argued that in this case remand was for
refixing the owelty amount alone and in this appeal this Court can consider only
whether the finding of the lower appellate court that owelty amount fixed was
correct or not. In other words the scope is limited to the consideration of
correctness or otherwise which was remanded for consideration and not any other
matter which are concluded on its merits by the lower appellate court. The
CMA No.238/2002 -: 5 :-
learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Narayanan v. Kumaran (2004
(2) KLT 312 (SC)) in which it was held that the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1,
Clause (u) should be heard only on the ground enumerated in Section 100 of CPC.
In the above cited case the Apex Court held as follows:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1