Direction to dispose of an interlocutory application first does not reopen a concluded appellate hearing.

The appellant challenged concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting the respondent an eviction decree under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”).

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant relied on an order dated 24 September 2025 in CO 2076 of 2025, which directed the First Appellate Court to dispose of a pending repair application before disposing of the appeal.

The appellant contended that, although the repair application was disposed of on 23 June 2026, the First Appellate Court did not provide a further opportunity of hearing before pronouncing judgment.

However, the First Appellate Court’s order dated 9 September 2025 recorded that the appeal had already been heard in full and was fixed only for delivery of judgment on 25 September 2025.

The High Court also noted that the appeal was procedurally in order as to valuation and permitted correction of the memorandum of appeal to include the names of the presiding Judges of the courts below.

The Court applied Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, governing termination of certain leases by notice and requiring a validly issued and served notice for eviction proceedings based on determination of tenancy.

It also applied the procedural principle that where an appeal has already been fully heard and is fixed for pronouncement of judgment, a subsequent direction to decide an interlocutory application first does not, by itself, reopen the hearing or create a fresh right of oral submissions.

The appeal was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as no substantial question of law or patent illegality was found.

The Court rejected the appellant’s procedural objection because the First Appellate Court’s order dated 9 September 2025 expressly recorded that the appeal had been heard in full and was listed only for judgment.

Since the revisional order was passed on 24 September 2025, no further hearing remained pending when the direction to dispose of the repair application was issued.

The First Appellate Court merely complied with that direction by deciding the repair application before pronouncing judgment; the direction did not revive or reopen the already concluded appellate hearing.

On the merits, both courts below had concurrently held that the notice under Section 106 of the TPA was valid and had been duly served. The High Court found no illegality or substantial question of law arising from those findings.

It further held that the concurrent findings regarding the validity and service of the Section 106 TPA notice raised no substantial question of law.

Accordingly, SAT 173 of 2026 was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, CAN 1 of 2026 was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.