Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent against the appellants concerning possession of certain premises. The respondent initiated Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1986, which was partially decreed by the Trial Court on 19.09.1987. The appellants appealed to the Additional District Judge, who set aside the Trial Court's decree on 28.09.1990. The respondent then filed a second appeal in the Bombay High Court, which was allowed by a Single Judge without formulating a substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants contended that the High Court's judgment was flawed due to this procedural oversight. The Supreme Court analyzed the requirements of Section 100 CPC, emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law. The Court noted that the High Court did not reference any substantial question in its judgment, which was necessary for maintaining the appeal. The Court also highlighted that the findings of fact regarding the nature of the defendant's possession were based on proper evidence and did not exhibit any irregularity. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court's order, reiterating the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in civil appeals. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - High Court's failure to formulate a substantial question of law before allowing the second appeal rendered the judgment unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must adhere to the procedural requirement of formulating a substantial question of law before reversing the findings of the first appellate court (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order allowing the second appeal due to the lack of a formulated substantial question of law, emphasizing the procedural requirements under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Law Points
- Second Appeal
- Substantial Question of Law
- Jurisdiction of High Court
- Permissive Possession
- Adverse Possession
