Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Suit for specific performance of the sale agreement filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the original defendant-owner of the property alleging defendant’s unwillingness to perform his part of contract – Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the respondent – Appeal thereagainst, partly allowed – Respondents then filed Second Appeal u/s.100 – High Court formulating the substantial question of law that whether lower appellate court has committed an illegality by not affirming the finding of the trial court and has denied the grant of discretionary relief in arbitrary manner, set aside the judgment and order passed by the appellate court and restored that of the trial court – Sustainability: Held: Impugned order passed by the High Court not sustainable in law – High Court ought not to have disturbed a well reasoned judgment and order passed by the first appellate court – Manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law very disturbing – It cannot be termed even a question of law far from being a substantial question of law – U/s.100, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence – High Court in the Second Appeal can interfere with the findings of the trial court on the ground of failure on the part of the trial as well as the first appellate Court, as the case may be, when such findings are either recorded without proper construction of the documents or failure to follow the decisions of this Court and acted on assumption not supported by evidence – It is not that the High Courts are not well-versed with the principles governing s.100 – It is only the casual and callous approach on the part of the courts to apply the correct principles of law to the facts of the case that leads to passing of vulnerable orders like the instant one – Judgement and order passed by the High Court set aside – Decree of specific performance not granted in favour of the respondents – Appellants- legal heirs of the original defendant, directed to refund the stipulated amount within the given period and on failure to do the same, the decree passed by the trial court shall stand restored. [Paras 22, 23, 28, 29, 32-34] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Principles governing the scope of a second appeal u/s.100 – Explained. [Paras 28, 29]
Judicial deprecation – Manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law in second appeal u/s.100 CPC:
Held: Manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law is very disturbing – By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be termed even a question of law far from being a substantial question of law – This Court cannot keep explaining the scope of a second appeal u/s.100 CPC and how a substantial question of law should be framed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100. [Para 23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.