Appeal: Regular second appeal – Maintainability of – Nonframing of question of law – Plea of appellant that the regular second appeal was decided without framing a question of law – In support of the said plea, the appellant relied upon decisions emanating from the Punjab and Haryana High Court – Held: By virtue of s.97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Amendment Act), s.100 CPC was amended requiring the second appeal to mandatorily contain a substantial question of law – However, in Punjab and Haryana, a different legal position prevails in view of Constitution Bench judgment in *Pankajakshi case – In *Pankajakshi case, it was opined that s.97 of the Amendment Act prohibited amendments made in the Principal Act which were repugnant to the same and, therefore, if any state amendment to CPC was enacted by the state legislature or a rule was made by the High Court of State in respect of the provisions of CPC which ran counter to it, that would be hit by the provisions of the savings clause of the Amendment Act – The caveat, however, was that the legislation in question being the Punjab Act is a pre-Constitution Act and hence is not a legislation hit by the provisions of Art.254 of the Constitution of India which holds state enactments to be repugnant to the enactments when they run counter to the laws enacted by the centre through the concurrent list – The legislation was saved by Art.372(1) of the Constitution of India being a preConstitutional enactment which was to continue to be in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature – No such repeal took place, hence, the legislation continues to operate – The effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench is that insofar as the State of Punjab is concerned, a second appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law since the Punjab Act was applicable for the State – Thus, s.100 CPC would not hold the field having supervening effect – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 – s.97 – Constitution of India – Art.254 and 372(1).
Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157 : [2016] 3 SCR 1018
– followed.
Chand Kaur (D) through Lrs. v. Mehar Kaur (D)
through Lrs. 2019 (5) SCALE 397 ; Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. 2018 (4) SCC 562 : [2018] 1 SCR 1063 – not correct law.
Kulwant Kaur & Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by Lrs. Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 262 : [2001] 2 SCR 525 – 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.