The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable against a decree passed in a Fatal Accident Original Petition (FAOP) filed under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli observed that the terms “action” and “suit” under the Act are synonymous and that such proceedings possess all the attributes of a civil suit. Consequently, the Court issued general directions that all future claims under the 1855 Act must be registered as Original Suits (O.S.) and not as FAOPs.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from Original Petition No. 55 of 2018 (FAOP) filed in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal) claimed compensation of ₹20,00,000 following the death of their son in an accident on October 5, 2016. The learned Principal District Judge allowed the claim on November 19, 2025, granting the full amount with 9% interest per annum.
When the appellant (Respondent No. 1 in the original FAOP) filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA), the Registry raised objections regarding its maintainability under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and the valuation of court fees. The appellant subsequently resubmitted the matter as an Appeal Suit (AS) under Section 96 CPC. However, the Registry remained unsatisfied, questioning whether an appeal under Section 96—which lies against a decree in a suit—could be maintained against an order passed in an “Original Petition.”
Arguments of the Parties
Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that although the proceedings were titled as an FAOP, the Principal District Judge had adjudicated a claim under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act and drawn a formal decree. He contended that since a decree was passed against the appellant, an appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 is maintainable. Relying on the Gauhati High Court’s decision in Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh v. State of Tripura, he submitted that the objection regarding the “entertainability” of the appeal was misplaced.
Court’s Analysis
The Court formulated two primary points for determination: whether an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies against a decree passed in an FAOP under the Fatal Accidents Act, and the appropriate court fee payable.
The Bench examined the definition of a “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC, noting it requires an adjudication given in a suit that conclusively determines the rights of the parties. Regarding the definition of a “suit,” the Court referred to the Privy Council decision in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators, which held that a suit is a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint.
Analyzing the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Bench noted that Section 1A uses the expressions “action or suit” and Section 3 explicitly mentions that a “plaint” shall be filed. The Court observed:
“The Act, 1855 confers the substantive right for damages and provides for the remedy by way of an ‘action’ or ‘suit’… Any special forum like Tribunal or Court, other than the regular civil Courts, has not been provided for nor constituted for adjudication.”
The Court further held that “action” has traditionally been understood as synonymous with “suit.” Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench noted:
“The word ‘action’ has traditionally been understood to be synonymous to ‘suit’, or as ordinary proceedings in a court of justice for enforcement or protection of the rights of the initiator of the proceedings.”
The Bench emphasized that no distinction should be made simply because a case is registered as an FAOP instead of an O.S., provided all attributes of a decree are met. It noted that in FAOPs, points for determination are framed, evidence is led, and a final adjudication is recorded—just as in an Original Suit.
The Decision
The High Court held that the appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable. To prevent future procedural confusion, the Court issued the following mandatory general directions:
- Claims under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, must be instituted in Civil Courts based on territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
- Such proceedings shall be registered as Original Suits (O.S.) and not as Fatal Accident Original Petitions (FAOP).
- Registry and Trial Courts are directed not to entertain FAOPs for such claims.
- All pending FAOPs shall be converted into Original Suits and assigned new numbers.
- Court fees must be paid as per the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
The Bench directed the Registrar (Judicial) to take necessary steps to implement these directions across all Trial Courts in the state.
Case Details:
Case Title: Birendra Prasad Jain v. Matcha Rama Krishna and 3 others
Case No.: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (SR). No. 9643 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari & Justice Balaji Medamalli
Date: 29.04.2026
