One Appeal Cannot Challenge Two Independent Judgments Passed in Separate Suits; Separate Decrees Require Separate Appeals: Punjab and Haryana High Court Reiterates Settled Appellate Law

Case Name: Rajbir v. Amir Singh

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2026

Citation: RSA-4395-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Regular Second Appeal challenging two independent judgments and decrees arising out of separate civil suits is not maintainable. The Court reiterated the settled principle that every decree must be challenged through an independent statutory appeal, unless the cases arise from the same proceedings or are otherwise covered by a recognised legal exception.

The Court observed that although both civil suits were decided by a common judgment, they retained their separate identities and culminated in distinct decrees. A common judgment does not merge separate decrees into one decree for the purposes of appeal. Consequently, a composite Regular Second Appeal assailing both decrees was held to be legally incompetent and liable to dismissal.

Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Narhari v. Shankar, the Court explained that while exceptional circumstances may permit a single appeal where one judgment gives rise to a common decree, separate decrees passed in distinct suits ordinarily require separate appeals. Since the appellant challenged two separate decrees through a single Regular Second Appeal, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary: The appellant, Rajbir, instituted the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 15 November 2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, and the appellate judgment dated 25 February 2025 passed by the District Judge, Charkhi Dadri.

The litigation arose out of two independent civil suits. The respondent, Amir Singh, had filed a suit seeking recovery of ₹6,85,000 against Rajbir, whereas Rajbir had instituted a separate suit for recovery of ₹31,31,022 against Amir Singh. The trial court decreed the respondent’s suit while dismissing the appellant’s suit. Both matters were thereafter challenged before the District Judge, who dismissed the appeals through a common judgment.

Aggrieved by the appellate decision, Rajbir preferred a single Regular Second Appeal seeking to assail both judgments and decrees.

Before examining the merits of the dispute, the High Court considered the preliminary issue of maintainability. Justice Harsh Bunger observed that although the first appellate court had delivered a common judgment, the litigation emanated from two distinct suits involving separate causes of action and separate decrees.

The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Premier Tyres Ltd. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, wherein it was held that each decree must ordinarily be challenged independently and that dismissal of an appeal against one decree may render the connected decree final, thereby attracting the principles of res judicata.

The Court also considered Narhari v. Shankar, where the Supreme Court recognised a limited exception permitting one appeal where a common judgment culminates in a single decree. However, Justice Bunger clarified that the exception was inapplicable because the present case involved two separate suits resulting in two independent decrees.

The High Court emphasised that the statutory right of appeal is decree-centric rather than judgment-centric. A common judgment may dispose of multiple proceedings, but it does not obliterate the separate legal identity of the decrees passed in each suit. Consequently, every decree giving rise to an independent right of appeal must ordinarily be challenged through a separate appeal.

Holding that the appellant had preferred only one Regular Second Appeal against two distinct decrees, the Court concluded that the appeal itself was procedurally incompetent.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal as not maintainable, holding that a single second appeal cannot be maintained against two independent judgments and decrees arising out of separate civil suits, notwithstanding that they were decided through a common judgment.