Code of Civil Procedure, 1973: s.100 – Second appeal – Substantial question of law – On 25.02.2016, Constitutional Bench judgment in Pankajakshi case, held that as far as Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, in a second appeal, the law which would be applicable would be s.41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which states that in Punjab and Haryana, in a second appeal, the Court need not frame substantial questions of law in second appeal – Impugned order passed on 02.02.2013 on the ground that substantial questions of law were not framed and without that the second appeal was allowed by High Court – Held: High Court proceeded to deal with the second appeal even without formulating a substantial question of law as would have been the requirement as it was understood in law in the year 2013 in the absence of the judgment in Pankajakshi – Matter remanded to High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: A perusal of the impugned judgment which was, in fact, rendered on 02.02.2013 which is prior to the judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others would, undoubtedly, appear to bear the appellant out in his complaint at the stage when the Court considered it on the first occasion, namely, that the Judge has proceeded to deal with the second appeal even without formulating a substantial question of law as would have been the requirement as it was understood in law in the year 2013 in the absence of the judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others. The High Court has proceeded in the matter without even carefully attending to the evidence which is available on record. It is another matter that in a second appeal jurisdiction of the Court as understood by this Court is very narrow. The findings which have been rendered and the approach of the Court would make it incompatible with the power available to the Court within the four walls of its jurisdiction in a second appeal as laid down by this Court. The case is remanded back to the High Court. The High Court will consider the matter as early as possible keeping in mind the fact that the suit is of the year 1998. [Paras 9, 11][837G-H; 838-A-C, E] Pankajakshi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 : [2016] 3 SCR 1018; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh and Others (2019) 17 SCC 71 : [2019] 9 SCR 776; Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Bimla Devi & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 827 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.