Case Note & Summary
The case involved a tenant's appeal against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had allowed a second appeal filed by the landlord and restored the eviction decree passed by the trial court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law at the time of issuing notice or before the hearing of the second appeal. It emphasized that it is settled law that a second appeal must involve a substantial question of law, which the High Court is required to formulate. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was liable to be set aside due to this procedural lapse. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for consideration of whether a substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the appeal within six months, given that the eviction suit was filed in 1991. The parties were already represented, so no fresh notice was required for them to appear before the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Formulation of Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court failed to formulate any substantial question of law before hearing the second appeal, which is a prerequisite for its consideration. The Supreme Court held that the absence of such formulation necessitated the setting aside of the High Court's judgment and remittance of the matter for proper consideration (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not formulating a substantial question of law in the second appeal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter for consideration of substantial questions of law, directing the High Court to dispose of the appeal within six months.
Law Points
- substantial question of law
- second appeal
- tenant's rights
- eviction proceedings
