Supreme Court Remands Case for Substantial Question of Law Consideration. High Court's Order Set Aside for Failing to Frame Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 12 bighas 4 biswas located in Village - Hasan, Tehsil - Sarhand, District - Patiala. The plaintiffs, who were the respondents, had their suit decreed by the Sub Judge, Bassi, directing the defendants, the appellants, to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance price. The appellants appealed to the Additional District Judge, Patiala, but their appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, modifying the previous judgments by granting the respondents interest on the balance amount deposited in the trial court. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had disposed of the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law, which is mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the failure to frame such a question rendered the High Court's order liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for the High Court to determine if any substantial question of law arose, and if so, to frame it and decide the appeal accordingly after hearing the parties.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Framing Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court disposed of the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law, which is a requirement under Section 100. The Supreme Court held that the order is liable to be set aside and remanded the matter for consideration of any substantial question of law that may arise (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in disposing of 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 High Court's order, and remanded the matter for consideration of any substantial question of law that may arise.

Law Points

  • specific performance
  • agreement to sell
  • substantial question of law
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
  • Section 100
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (03) 23

Civil Appeal No.1356 of 2009

2009-03-02

B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi

Hazura Singh (Dead) Thr. L.R.

Gurdial Singh & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought specific performance and interest on the balance amount.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the execution of a sale deed for land.

Previous Decisions

The suit was decreed by the Sub Judge, and the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants contended that the High Court failed to frame a substantial question of law as required by Section 100. The respondents argued that the High Court's decision to allow the appeal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court must frame a substantial question of law before allowing a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court disposed of the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law. The order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

Procedural History

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, decreed by the Sub Judge, appealed to the Additional District Judge, and then a second appeal was allowed by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection to Petitioners in Commercial Arbitration Petition Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act. Exclusive Rights to Manufacture Ice Cream Under 'Vadilal' Brand in Designated Territories Preserved Pending Arbitration ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Single Judge's Order Dismissing Interim Injunction in Financial Dispute — Court Emphasizes Proper Forum for Claims.