ABDUL RAHEEM versus THE KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 20-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

;;... . 
ABDUL RAHEEM 
A 
v. 
THE KARNAT AKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2007 
B 
~· 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
., 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section I 00: 
Substantial question of law-Formulation of-Specific c 
performance of contract-Agreement for sale of land entered into 
between appellant and respondent No.I-Suit for specific 
performance on ground of non-performance of part of contract by other 
party-Dismissed by trial Court-Appeal dismissed by first appellate 
Court-Appeal filed thereagainst dismissed by High Court holding that D 
appellate Court failed to interpret terms of the agreement-On appeal, 
, 
Held: Non-consideration of relevant fact and consideration of 
irrelevant fact would give rise to a substantial question of law-
Reversal of findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court ignoring 
vital document may also lead to a substantial question of law-High E· 
Court failed to formulate the substantial questions of law-Hence, the 
matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh upon 
formulation of the question-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Non-
• . .J 
-< 
performance of part of contract . 
...,. 
An agreement for sale ofland in question was entered into by and F 
between the appellant and respondent No.1. Since appellant did not 
perform his part of contract, respondent No.1 filed suit for specific 
performance of contract. The same was dismissed by trial Court. An 
appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1 was dismissed by G 
--.. 
the first appellate Court. Second appeal preferred by respondent No.1 
"'"-/ 
before the High Court was allowed by the High Court holding that the · 
first appellate Court failed to interpretthe clauses of the agreement in 
their proper perspective; and that it applied the provisions contained in 
389 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
- ..,,:.. 
A Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act directing refund of the earnest 
amount in a mechanical manner. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the purported substantial questions of 
law formulated by the High Court do not meet the requirements of 
B Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code; and that having regard 
to the factual findings arrived at by the first appellate Court, the High 
,. 
Court should not have interfered therewith in exercise of its power 
~ 
under Section 100 of the Code. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. A substantial question oflaw ordinarily would arise 
from the finding of facts arrived at by the trial Court and the first appellate 
Court. The High Court's junsdiction in terms of Section 100 of the Code 
is undoubtedly limited. [Para 10) [394-CJ 
D 
1.2. The question as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing 
to perform its part of contract by itself may not give rise to a substantial 
~ 
question oflaw. [Para 11 J [394-D] 
1.3. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that 
E consideration ofirrelevant fact and non-consideration of relevant fact 
would give rise to a substantial question oflaw. Reversal of a finding of 
fact arrived at by the first appellate Court ignoring vital documents may 
also lead to a substantial question oflaw. [Para 12) [394-EJ 
F 
Vidhyadharv. manikrao & Anr., [1999) 3 SCC 573, relied on. 
* 
2. Ordinarily, on the failure of the High Court to formulate 
substantial questions oflaw within the meaning of Section 100 of the 
Code, the appeal should have been allowed. However, since respondent 
G 
no.1 had already parted with a substantial portion of the consideration 
amount as also upon having paid a large sum towards conversion 
~ 
charges, in the interest of justice another opportunity should be given 
-...= 
to the High Court to frame proper substantial questions oflaw arising 
in the matter. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter 
H 
is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh 
4 
ABDUL RAHEEM v. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY 
391 
.;...-
BOARD [SINHA, J.] 
upon formulation of a substantial question oflaw. 
A 
[Para 13and15] [395-A, B; 396-E] 
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Vijay Darsharath Patel, 
[2007] 4 SCC 118 and P. Chandrasekharan & Ors. v. S Kanakarajan & 
prs., [2007) 5 sec 669, relied on. 
B 
"' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5320 of 
• 
~ 
2007. 
From the Judgment/final Order dated 15.9.2005 of the High Court 
of Kamataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. No. 238/2000. 
c 
Nagendra Rai, Praveen Swarup, An

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.