Supreme Court Remands Case to High Court for Framing Substantial Questions of Law. Procedural Error Found in Admission of Appeal Without Framing Questions.

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

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a civil appeal concerning the admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on 11.06.1990 without framing any substantial questions of law. The case was heard on 02.05.2009, and judgment was reserved, but again, no questions of law were framed at that time. The judgment delivered on 10.06.2009 mentioned certain substantial questions of law, which were framed only during the dictation of the judgment. The Supreme Court found this procedure unfair as it deprived the parties of the opportunity to assist the court on the specific questions of law. The court noted that Section 100 mandates the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not framing these questions prior to the hearing and thus remanded the matter back to the High Court for proper consideration. The court also requested the High Court to treat the case as a second appeal filed in 1990 and to give it priority. The issue of the death of one of the respondents was left for the High Court to decide. The appeal was allowed in these terms.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Requirement of Framing Questions of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court admitted the appeal without formulating substantial questions of law, which is a procedural error. The court emphasized that the parties must know the questions of law to assist the court effectively. Held that the appeal should be remanded for proper framing of questions (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in admitting the appeal without framing substantial questions of law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for proper framing of substantial questions of law, requesting priority in hearing due to the case's age.

Law Points

  • Second appeal
  • substantial question of law
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
  • Section 100
  • High Court's duty to frame questions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (08) 233

Civil Appeal No.5272 of 2010

2019-08-29

Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose

Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Anoop Kandari, B. Sridhar, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari

Sudam Kisan Gavane (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Manik Ananta Shikketod (D) By Lrs. & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal concerning procedural errors in the admission of a second appeal.

Remedy Sought

Remand of the case to the High Court for proper framing of substantial questions of law.

Filing Reason

Appeal admitted without framing substantial questions of law.

Previous Decisions

High Court admitted the appeal without formulating questions of law.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in admitting the appeal without framing substantial questions of law.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court failed to frame substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal. The respondent's arguments were not detailed in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court must frame substantial questions of law before hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to ensure fair proceedings.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court admitted the appeal without framing any question of law. This procedure, in our opinion, is not fair to the parties. We remand the matter to the High Court and request the High Court to decide the questions of law after hearing the parties.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed and admitted by the High Court on 11.06.1990. The hearing took place on 02.05.2009, and judgment was reserved. Judgment was delivered on 10.06.2009.

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 PIL Challenging Demolition of Temple Structure at Vaidya Wadi. Court holds that the structure was not a protected monument and the petitioners lacked locus standi.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Position in Official Trustee Act Matter — Jurisdiction and Lease Validity Affirmed.