Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Non-Compliance with CPC Requirements. High Court's failure to formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC invalidated its judgment.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court that allowed a Second Appeal filed by the respondent. The appellant, B.C. Shivashankara, challenged the High Court's decision on the grounds that it did not formulate any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was filed only by the first defendant, while the other defendants were impleaded as respondents but later deleted at the appellant's request. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment did not indicate any substantial question of law had been formulated or that the appeal was heard on such a question. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing the necessity of formulating a substantial question of law for the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. It highlighted that the High Court's failure to do so rendered its judgment unsustainable. The Court also reiterated that mere long possession does not equate to adverse possession without evidence of hostile animus. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Formulating Substantial Question of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - High Court failed to formulate a substantial question of law before allowing the Second Appeal, violating procedural requirements. The Supreme Court held that the judgment cannot be maintained due to this non-compliance and remitted the matter back to the High Court for proper disposal (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

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.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Second Appeal
  • Substantial Question of Law
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
  • Jurisdiction of High Court
  • Permissive Possession
  • Adverse Possession
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (02) 410

Appeal (civil) 5452 of 2000

2007-02-27

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE

B.C. Shivashankara

B.R. Nagaraj

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against a High Court judgment allowing a Second Appeal.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the High Court's judgment.

Filing Reason

High Court allowed the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law.

Previous Decisions

High Court's judgment was based on a Second Appeal that lacked necessary procedural compliance.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the High Court did not comply with Section 100 CPC. Respondents did not appear despite service of notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court must formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC before allowing a Second Appeal; failure to do so invalidates the judgment.

Judgment Excerpts

The judgment cannot be maintained. It is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law. Mere possession for a long time does not result in converting permissive possession into adverse possession.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court allowing the Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition as Time-Barred Under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Service of Arbitral Award Deemed Complete Upon Acknowledgment by Relative at Petitioner's Address.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Gold Control Act Provisions — Validates Restrictions on Licensed Dealers.