Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law not framed – Impropriety:
Held: First appellate court is the final Court insofar as the question of facts are concerned and it is only when substantial questions of law would arise in a case that the High Court can entertain a Regular Second Appeal – If at the stage of admission such substantial questions of law are discerned by the High Court the same would have to be framed and the appeal(s) would have to be admitted – It is only thereafter that the parties have to be heard on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court at the stage of admission – However, the CPC gives power to the High Court to frame additional substantial questions of law or to mould the substantial questions of law already framed on hearing the parties at the time of final hearing of a Second Appeal – In the event the respondents before the High Court are on record even at the stage of admission of a Regular Second Appeal and the same is to be disposed of finally even at this stage substantial questions of law must be framed and answered before the Regular Second Appeal is admitted and disposed – In the present case, the same was not framed – Said error is compounded by the Judge stating in the order passed in the review petition that no such substantial question of law arose in the appeal(s) – If no substantial question of law arose in the case then the appeal could not have been entertained and ought to have been dismissed at the stage of admission – But on the other hand, in the absence of framing any substantial question of law the appeal was allowed, that too, at the stage of admission, without issuance of notice to the other respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 and by hearing only counsel for respondent No.2 before the High Court who was on caveat – Impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Second Appeal as well as Review Petition set aside – Matters remanded to High Court. [Paras 13-16, 18]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Regular second appeal, practice to be followed – Law – Discussed.
Practice and Procedure – First appellate court had not considered the Regular Appeal on merits, matter was remanded to trial court for fresh consideration – Legality:
Held: If the High Court thought it fit to condone the delay in filing the Regular Appeal then the matter had to be remanded to the first appellate court to consider the Regular Appeal on merits and not just set aside the trial court decree and remand the case to the trial court for a fresh adjudication – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Para 12]
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.
As listed in the Supreme Court Reports. Linked where the judgment is on LegalFirms.in.
From the case lists those reports print.
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.