Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of an order dated 13.03.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014, wherein the Supreme Court had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27.11.2007 in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985, restoring the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sangrur dated 06.06.1985 in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1983. The original judgment held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by reappreciating evidence without framing a substantial question of law. The review was based on the Constitution Bench decision in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157, which upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab Act), overruling earlier decisions. The Court noted that Section 41 of the Punjab Act does not require framing of a substantial question of law, and the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is governed by that provision, not Section 100 CPC as amended in 1976. The petitioner argued that the original judgment erroneously applied Section 100 CPC, while the respondents conceded the legal position but contended that even under Section 41, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact. The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, set aside the original judgment, and restored the High Court's judgment, holding that the High Court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case regarding the validity of the Will.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction of High Court - Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 vs. Section 100 CPC - The Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi (supra) upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Act, holding that it continues as a law in force and second appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court are to be heard within the parameters of Section 41, not Section 100 CPC. Consequently, the High Court is not required to frame a substantial question of law. (Paras 4-5, 10)
B) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, finding that the original judgment erroneously applied Section 100 CPC to a second appeal governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Act, which does not require framing of a substantial question of law. The review was granted to correct this error. (Paras 12-13)
C) Evidence - Will - Proof of Will - Suspicious Circumstances - The Court did not delve into the merits of the Will's validity, leaving the High Court's judgment undisturbed on the question of law regarding the scope of second appeal. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment under review, which set aside the High Court's decree on the ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, requires review in light of the subsequent Constitution Bench decision in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157, which upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and held that second appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Act and not Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The review petition is allowed. The order dated 13.03.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27.11.2007 in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985 is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal jurisdiction
- Section 41 Punjab Courts Act
- 1918
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- review petition
- Pankajakshi v. Chandrika
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (5) 167
Review Petition (Civil) No. 6567 of 2014
P.S. Patwalia (for petitioner), Manoj Swarup (for respondents)
Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against Supreme Court judgment in civil appeal concerning property dispute and validity of Will.
Remedy Sought
Review of order dated 13.03.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014, which set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the District Judge's decree.
Filing Reason
The original judgment erroneously applied Section 100 CPC instead of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi.
Previous Decisions
District Judge, Sangrur decreed in favor of respondents on 06.06.1985; First Appellate Court affirmed; Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside in second appeal on 27.11.2007; Supreme Court restored District Judge's decree on 13.03.2019.
Issues
Whether the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 or Section 100 CPC?
Whether the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law?
Whether the original Supreme Court judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The original judgment erroneously applied Section 100 CPC; the High Court's jurisdiction is under Section 41 of the Punjab Act, which does not require framing of substantial question of law; the High Court's finding on the Will was correct.
Respondents: Conceded legal position on Section 41 but argued that even under Section 41, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact; the Will was proved and no suspicious circumstances existed.
Ratio Decidendi
The jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeals is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which does not require framing of a substantial question of law. The original Supreme Court judgment erroneously applied Section 100 CPC, which requires such framing, and thus suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Judgment Excerpts
In the judgment under review, this Court held that the judgment and decree passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] on the ground that in exercise of such power, the High Court could not have reappreciated the entire evidence on record to unsettle the finding of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court, by substituting its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court.
The provision contained in Section 41 of the Punjab Act, as reproduced above, does not mandate framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining the second appeal. Therefore, a second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Act can be entertained by the Punjab and Haryana High Court even without framing a substantial question of law.
Consequently, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 13.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27.11.2007 passed in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985 is restored.
Procedural History
The dispute originated in a civil suit, leading to a decree by the District Judge, Sangrur on 06.06.1985. The First Appellate Court affirmed that decree. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1985, set aside the decree on 27.11.2007. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6567 of 2014, allowed the appeal and restored the District Judge's decree on 13.03.2019. The petitioner then filed the present review petition, which was allowed, restoring the High Court's judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Section 97(1)
- Punjab Courts Act, 1918: Section 41
