De novo appellate order requires independent application of mind; adoption of a void prior order was held unsustainable.

An appellate order passed in de novo proceedings was unsustainable where it merely adopted an earlier order already held to be without jurisdiction. An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot furnish any legal basis or precedent for a later decision. In de novo adjudication, the appellate authority had to examine the issues independently and decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties. Because the impugned order failed to apply independent mind and simply affirmed the non est earlier order, it was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision by the jurisdictional appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned appellate order, passed in de novo proceedings, was sustainable when it merely adopted an earlier order that had been held to be without jurisdiction and did not independently apply mind to the issues.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order, which the impugned order expressly followed, had already been held to be without jurisdiction. An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity in law and cannot supply any precedent value or legal foundation for a later decision. In de novo proceedings, the appellate authority was required to examine the matter independently and decide the issues on merits after hearing the parties. Since the impugned order only upheld and adopted the earlier non est order, without independent consideration of the questions raised in appeal, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits by the jurisdictional appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A de novo appellate order that merely adopts an earlier order passed without jurisdiction, without independent application of mind, is unsustainable and must be set aside.

---