Chand Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Mehar Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 March 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3281 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari

Citation

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 886 : 2019 INSC 413

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeals were disposed of by the High Court without framing any substantial question(s) of law – Held: Framing of substantial questions of law in instant appeals was mandatory because the High Court allowed the second appeals and interfered in the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which was impugned in the second appeals – The sine qua non for allowing the second appeal is to first frame the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and then decide the second appeal by answering the question(s) framed – Thus, case remanded to High Court to first frame substantial question(s), which, according to the appellants of the second appeals, arise in their respective second appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. This Court has consistently held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to allow the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law as provided under Section

100 of the Code. In other words, the sine qua non for allowing the second appeal is to first frame the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and then decide the second appeal by answering the question(s) framed. [Para 6][888-G-H; 889-A]

2. Since in this case, the High Court failed to frame any substantial question either at the time of admitting the appeal or before final hearing and yet proceeded to allow some of the second appeals in the bunch by modifying the judgment impugned therein, the High Court committed jurisdictional error requiring this Court to interfere. Thus, cases remanded to the High Court, which will accordingly decide the appeals on merits strictly in accordance with law. [Para 7][889-C-E]

Surat Singh(Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 562 : [2018] 1 SCR 1063; Vijay Arjun Bhagat & Ors. v. Nana Laxman Tapkire & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC

72 7 : [ 2018] 4 SCR 452 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 2066, 2067, 2068, 2292 and 2294 of 1987. 3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail for the disposal of these appeals for the reason that having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeals, out of which these ap

View Subscription Plans →