Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banjerjee explained how the doctrine of merger works, with regard to a case in which the Supreme Court found the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana Court to be incorrect, in the following words:
“The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order is passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way – whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction applied by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.”
The plaintiff in the said case paid the remaining consideration in a sale after the appeal against a trial court decree was squashed by the High Court.The respondent questioned the execution on the ground that the deposit by the offended party was overdue as the preliminary court had coordinated the execution inside about fourteen days.
The high court, though allowing the revision held that, the execution order passed by the trial court holds good and just because an appeal or revision is pending before a superior doesn’t necessarily negate the order passed by the lower court according to Order 41 rule 5 of the Code of civil procedure.
The offended party called attention to that the intrigue against the trail court request was pending in the high court for a long time and was expelled distinctly in 2015. The execution court dismissed the complaints of the litigant.
To this the High Court held that the decree was not executable as per section 28 of the specific Relief Act. Allowing the revision, it modified the decree to make it one for return of sale consideration to the plaintiff.
86540
103860
630
114
59824