Supreme Court Remits Second Appeal for Consideration of Substantial Question of Law. High Court's Judgment Set Aside for Not Framing Substantial Question as Required Under Section 100.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment dated 18.9.2001 from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents had filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1053 of 1981, which resulted in the reversal of the decrees from the trial and lower appellate courts, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' suit for declaration. The trial court had initially decreed the suit, declaring the order passed by the Collector for redemption of the mortgage as a nullity. However, the lower appellate court upheld this decree. Upon reaching the High Court, the learned Single Judge reversed the decisions without framing any substantial question of law, which is mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's action was improper and set aside the judgment, remitting the second appeal back to the High Court for consideration of whether a substantial question of law arises. The High Court was instructed to frame such a question if it deemed necessary and to decide the appeal accordingly, ensuring that both parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2009.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Framing Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court's judgment was set aside as it allowed the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite under Section 100. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to first determine if any substantial question of law arises before proceeding with the appeal (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court could allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the second appeal to the High Court for consideration of substantial questions of law.

Law Points

  • Second appeal
  • substantial question of law
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
  • Section 100
  • reversal of decree
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (04) 46

Civil Appeal No. 6084 of 2002

2009-04-16

B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma

Mehar Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors.

Sawan Singh (D) By Lrs. and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal regarding a suit for declaration and redemption of mortgage.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the High Court's judgment and restore the trial court's decree.

Filing Reason

The High Court dismissed the appellants' suit without framing a substantial question of law.

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the lower appellate court before being reversed by the High Court.

Issues

Whether the High Court could allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court's judgment was invalid as it did not frame a substantial question of law. The respondents' arguments are not mentioned.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court must frame a substantial question of law before allowing a second appeal as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court could not have allowed the second appeal without framing substantial question of law as per the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and the second appeal is remitted to the High Court.

Procedural History

The trial court decreed the appellants' suit, the lower appellate court confirmed this decree, and the High Court reversed these decisions in a second appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses ONGC's Challenge to Arbitral Award in FPSO Charter Hire Dispute. Court upholds arbitral tribunal's interpretation of contract clauses and rejection of counterclaims, finding no patent illegality or perversity in the award.
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Dangerous Person Due to Lack of Material on Public Order Disturbance. Detenu's Criminal Activities Did Not Justify Detention Under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.