Orders from which appeal lies
Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with orders from which appeal lies. An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:--- * * * [(ff) an order under section 35A;] [(ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a s The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:---
1** * * *
2[(ff) an order under section 35A;]
3[(ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be;]
(g) an order under section 95;
(h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree;
(i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules:
2[Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.]
(2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.
Section 104, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
D. P. Chadha vs Triyugi Narain Mishra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An advocate commits grave professional misconduct when he: (1) misappropriates blank documents signed in confidence by his client; (2) uses such documents to fabricate false compromise petitions without client's knowledge or consent; (3) takes deliberate steps to prevent his own client from appearing before court or gathering knowledge of court proceedings; (4) resists reasonable judicial orders for personal appearance of the client with the intention of concealing the fraud from the court; (5) thereby causes irreversible damage to client's interests and causes closure of client's business enterprise affecting thousands of innocent persons. Such conduct is not merely erroneous judgment but deliberate deception and fraud which strikes at the very foundation of the profession's role in administration of justice. An advocate has a paramount duty to truth and justice which cannot be subordinated to any client's interest or personal gain.
On this section: Considered regarding whether miscellaneous appeals were maintainable against trial court orders on compromise verification
-
Srei International Fin. Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A corporate litigant engaged in civil proceedings has a duty to monitor the status of the litigation and maintain communication with its counsel. When a litigant remains dormant about suit proceedings for an inordinate period (such as three years) without taking any steps to ascertain the status of the case, and subsequently seeks to set aside an ex-parte decree by attributing negligence to its counsel, the court will not condone such delay unless the litigant demonstrates bonafide conduct and due diligence. The excuse that counsel assured information would be furnished as needed is insufficient to excuse a three-year delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. Furthermore, testimony by counsel regarding factual matters within his knowledge (such as communications sent to the client) does not constitute privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and is admissible in evidence to rebut allegations of professional negligence.
On this section: Defines the right to appeal from orders of subordinate courts to the High Court
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Since the judgment in Sathappan's case was strongly relied upon by both sides, we need to refer to it in a little detail. Sathappan was a judgment which dealt with the correct interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 104 provides: "Section 104 - Orders from which appeal lies (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other …
-
… Since the judgment in Sathappan's case was strongly relied upon by both sides, we need to refer to it in a little detail. Sathappan was a judgment which dealt with the correct interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 104 provides: "Section 104 - Orders from which appeal lies (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other …
-
… J U D G M E N T JABALPUR: (25/10/2018) The present appeal is filed under Section 104 CPC read with Order 43 Rule 1(U) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC'), challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 21.5.2010 passed by 9th Upper District Judge, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.24-A/2009 whereby the appeals filed by the defendants have been partially allowed and the …
Questions about Section 104
What have the courts held on Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
D. P. Chadha vs Triyugi Narain Mishra (05 Dec 2000) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Considered regarding whether miscellaneous appeals were maintainable against trial court orders on compromise verification. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2000 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 104, section 104 CPC, section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with D. P. Chadha vs Triyugi Narain Mishra (05 Dec 2000).
What should I read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 35A (Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences), section 91 (Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public), section 92 (Public charities), section 95 (Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient ground), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 104, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.