# Nagar Palika Parishad v. Tehsildar, Thakurdwar, Moradabad - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1050 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-09-21 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-palika-parishad-v-tehsildar-thakurdwar-moradabad-42034 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Civil Procedure-Section-102Second Appeal-suit for injunction-from realization of Property Tax-to the tone of Rs. 11006.07/-decreed by first Appellate Court-No Second Appeal for valuation of Rs. 25000/-lie-held-Second Appeal barred by Section 102-not maintainable. Held: Para 11 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the present second appeal arises out of a suit concerning recovery of money of value less than Rs.25,000/- and as such it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. ## Text 1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". 22. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the later before the Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out, the inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is neither illegality nor infirmity in the impugned order dated 19.03.2010 passed by learned Single Judge. 24. Thus, present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J. Second Appeal No. - 781 of 2011 Nagar Palika Parishad ...Petitioner Versus Tehsildar, Thakurdwar, Moradabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.K. Khanna Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Kshitij Shailendra Code of Civil Procedure-Section-102Second Appeal-suit for injunction-from realization of Property Tax-to the tone of Rs. 11006.07/-decreed by first Appellate Court-No Second Appeal for valuation of Rs. 25000/-lie-held-Second Appeal barred by Section 102-not maintainable. Held: Para 11 Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the present second appeal arises out of a suit concerning recovery of money of value less than Rs.25,000/- and as such it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. ) 1. Heard Sri J.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 13 of 1994 for permanent injunction against the defendant Nagar Palika Parishad and the Tehsildar restraining them by a decree of permanent injunction 3 All] Raj Kishore Vaish V. State of U.P. 1051 not to recover property tax of Rs.6760/- and a further some of Rs.4,246.07/- on the ground that the plaintiffs are already paying property tax in respect of the property in question to some other local authority i.e. Zila Panchayat. 3. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.1.08. 4. Aggrieved plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.30 of 2008. The appeal has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.7.11. The judgment and order of the court of first instance has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. 5. It is against the decree of the lower appellate court that the defendant has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 6. The valuation of the suit as well as the appeal is Rs.11006.07. The aforesaid valuation has been disclosed by taking the total of the two amounts sought to be recovered from the plaintiffs. 7. In substance the subject matter of the original suit happens to be concerning recovery of money not exceeding 25,000/- rupees, though the relief claimed may have been cough in a different way by asking for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. 8. Section 102 C.P.C. specifically provides that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. The purpose of barring second appeals in matters arising from suit for recovery of money not exceeding twentyfive thousand rupees is to minimize litigation on trivial matters. 9. The suit for recovery of money or for not recovering it are both in the nature of recovery of money. 10. The suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realizing a particular amount may be in the nature of injunction but nonetheless it is a suit relating to recovery of money. 11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the present second appeal arises out of a suit concerning recovery of money of value less than Rs.25,000/- and as such it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. 12. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed as barred by Section 102 C.P.C. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA,J. First Appeal From Order No. - 801 of 2011 Raj Kishore Vaish ...Appellant Versus The State Of U.P. Through Its Chief Secy., Vidhan Bhwan Lucknow ...Respondent Code of Civil Procedure-Order 33 rule-2exemption from-court fee-suit for damage of Rs. 2537 lakhs filed-on ground-against wrong exclusion of Sale tax under Section 4-A-writ petitiondismissed-review rejected by High Court-SLP also rejected-serious allegation against High Court as well as Supreme Court made-amounts to Criminal Contempt-petitioner running factory possessing more than 1000/-