Case Details Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vs Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6070 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 488 : 2023 INSC 846

Issue for consideration

Whether in the absence of affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing the framed substantial questions of law, the High Court could have proceeded to decide the same in an appeal u/s.100, CPC particularly, when the findings of fact rendered by two Courts, were sought to be reversed; and further, whether without summoning and perusing the trial record, findings of fact could have been reversed by High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.100, CPC. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Scope:

Headnote

Held: A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances – Post such framing of questions, the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions after giving them adequate time to meet and address them – It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided – Further, in ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned – s.100(5) suggests that there is a gap between framing of the questions at admission and hearing, as the proviso thereto gives an opportunity to the Court to frame additional questions at the time of hearing, on which the parties would have to be heard as well – Meaning thereby, that the questions framed at the time of admission, at such point of subsequent framing of questions are already known to the parties and they have had time to prepare to address arguments on the same – It is during the arguments that a further important issue is discovered and a question in that regard is framed, with the parties then being granted time to meet that question as well – In the present case, the parties were not given the requisite time to meet the questions framed by the Court – Questions of law were framed on the second date of hearing, the parties were heard right then and there, and the second appeal was disposed of with the judgment being dictated and findings of fact reversed – Further, impugned judgment overturned concurrent findings of fact in respect of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform the contract, without pointing out the exceptional circumstance or the perversity in the findings which were returned by the Courts below – For the Court to have done so, the actual evidence which was before the Courts below had to be called for – Impugned Judgement set aside – Matter remanded to High Court. [Paras 21, 23-25, 27, 28] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Principles reiterated.

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The following questions arise for consideration of this Court: 2.1 Whether in the absence of affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing the framed substantial questions of law, the High Court could have proceeded to decide the same in an appeal preferred under section 100 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “CPC”), particularly, when the findings of fact rendered by two Courts, were sought to be reversed? 2.2 Whether in the absence of any trial record or without summoning and

View Subscription Plans →