Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil appeal concerning the decision made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 3876 of 1997. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had allowed the Second Appeal of the respondent without framing any substantial question of law, which is required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Gian Dass vs. Gram Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan and Ors. and C.A. Sulaiman & Ors. vs. State Bank of Travancore, Alwayee & Ors., emphasizing that the absence of a substantial question of law rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh on its merits, ensuring that a substantial question of law is formulated. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered no costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - High Court's Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court allowed the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite for such appeals. The Supreme Court held that the judgment rendered by the High Court could not be sustained and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration after formulating the necessary question (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Second Appeal without framing a substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits, directing the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law within six months.
Law Points
- Substantial question of law
- Second appeal
- High Court jurisdiction
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
