Tarkeshwar Pandey v. Deena Nath Yadav and Ors., 2025
The Court emphasized that the bar under Section 104(2) is “complete and absolute”, and no second appeal or remedy is available against such orders.
Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
9 November 2025
Judges
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The plaintiff, Tarkeshwar Pandey, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 against an order passed by the District Judge, Ballia, dated 20.03.2025.
-
The impugned order arose from a miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 CPC.
-
Section 100 CPC allows a second appeal to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by a subordinate court, provided the appeal involves a substantial question of law.
-
Section 104 CPC deals with miscellaneous civil appeals and specifically bars further appeals from orders passed under it through Section 104(2).
Issues
-
Whether a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be filed against an order passed in a miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 CPC?
-
Whether an order under Section 104(1) read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) qualifies as a “decree” for the purpose of Section 100?
Held
-
Second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed.
-
No appeal can lie to the High Court against orders passed under Section 104 CPC, as per Section 104(2).
Analysis
-
It Reinforces the strict statutory bar on further appeals against orders under Section 104 CPC.
-
It Clarifies that Section 100 CPC is only applicable to decrees, not orders, emphasizing the legal distinction between the two.
-
It Serves as a precedent to prevent litigants from circumventing Section 104(2) CPC by attempting a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
-
It Highlights that procedural bars in CPC are mandatory, and High Courts will enforce them to prevent repetitive litigation.