Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the High Court in a Second Appeal. The plaintiff-respondent did not appear despite receiving notice. The primary contention was that the High Court interfered with the findings of fact established by the First Appellate Court without properly framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order did not disclose the substantial questions of law it referred to, which constituted a procedural lapse. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the necessity of framing substantial questions of law before proceeding with the appeal. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Substantial Questions of Law - Requirement for Framing - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court failed to disclose the substantial questions of law it purported to refer to, leading to improper interference with the First Appellate Court's findings. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing after proper framing of substantial questions of law. Held that the High Court must adhere to procedural requirements in such appeals (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court interfered with the findings of fact without framing a proper substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh hearing after proper framing of substantial questions of law, allowing the appeal without costs.
Law Points
- Interference with findings of fact
- framing substantial questions of law
- remittance for fresh hearing
