ASHOK RANGNTH NAGAR versus SHRIKANT GOVINDRAO SANGVIKAR

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 27-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 12 S.C.R. 931 
ASHOKRANGNTHNAGAR 
A 
v. 
SHRIKANT GOVINDRAO SANGVIKAR 
(Civil Appeal No.8909 of2015) 
OCTOBER 27, 2015 
B 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second appeal 
- High Court's Jurisdiction uls. 100 - Scope of - Held: 
Jurisdiction u/s. 100 is exercised by High Court only when it c 
is satisfied that there is a substantial question of law - On 
facts, High Court without formulating substantial question of 
law allowed the apoeal and set aside the judgment passed 
by the trial court and the first ~ppellate court - High Court 
failed to notice mandate of s. 100 while deciding a second D 
appeal - Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is 
set aside - Matter remitted back to the High Court to first 
formulate substantial question of law and then decide the 
second appeal afresh. 
Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011} 9 
SCC 678:2011 (10) SCR 787; Umerkhan vs. 
Bismillabi (2011} 9 sec 684: 2011 (9) SCR 551; 
Rameshwar Dayal Mangala v. Harish Chand 
(2009) 4 sec 800: 2009 (4) ·scR 505; a.c. 
Shivashankara vs. B.R. Nagaraj (2007) 15 SCC 
387 :2007 (3) SCR 389; Patrick JJ. Saldanha vs. 
Antony M. Saldanha (2007) 11 SCC 148:2007 (6) 
SCR 124; Mahavir vs. Lakhmi (2007) 9 SCC 208: 
2007 (1) SCR 1135; Hardeep Kaur vs. Malkiat 
Kaur(2012} 4 SCC 344: 2012 (2) SCR 478; Shah 
Mansukhlal Chhaganial vs. Gohil Amarsing 
Govindbhai (2006) 13SCC113: 2006 (10} Suppl. 
. SCR 135; Boodireddy Chandraiah vs. Arigela 
Lax mi (2007) 8 SCC 155: 2007 (9) SCR 1061; 
931 
E 
F 
G 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew (2005) 7 
SCC 667 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 429; State of 
Kera/a vs. Puthenkavu N. S.S. Karayogam (2001) 
10 SCC 191; Ellangallur vs. Gopalan (2000) 2 
SCC 11; H. G Venkataramanaiah vs. Subba Pujari · 
B 
(2000) 10 SCC 412; Ramavilasom Grandhasa/a 
vs. N.S.S. Karayogam (2000) 5 SCC 64: 2000 
(3) SCR 1151 - referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
c 
2011 (10) SCR 787 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
• 
2011 (9) SCR 551 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
2009 (4) SCR 505 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
2007 (3) SCR 389 
Referred to. 
Para 11 
D 
2007 (6) SCR 124 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
2007 (1) SCR 1135 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
2012 (2) SCR 478 
Referred to. 
Para 14 
E 
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 135 Referred to. 
Para 15 
2007 (9) ~CR 1061 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 429: Referred to. 
Para 16 
2001) 10 sec 191 . 
Referred to. 
Para 17 
F 
(20001 2 sec 11 
Referred to. 
Para 18 
(2000) 10 sec 412 
Referred to. 
Para 18 
2000 (3) SCR1151 
Referred to. 
Para 19 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
8909 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench atAurangabad in 
H Second Appeal No. 285 of2013. 
WITH 
ASHOK RANGNTH NAGAR v. SHRIKANT GOVINDRAO 
933 
SANGVIKAR 
C. A. Nos. 8910 and 8911 of 2015. 
A 
Vatsalya Vigya, (For Sudhanshu S. Choudhari), Advs:, for 
the Appellant. 
Vanita ChandrakantGiri, (A.C.},Adv., forthe Respondent, 
B 
Respondent-in-person. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 
2. We have heard Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, learned counsel 
appearing for the appellant and Ms. ChandrakantGiri, learned 
Amicus Curiae for the respondents and perused the common 
impugned judgment dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Bombay 
c 
High Court. 
D 
3. The short question that arises for consideration in these 
appeals is as to whether the High Court was justified in passing 
the impugned judgment without formulating any substantial 
question of law. 
4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the plaintiff-
respondents filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction against 
the defendant-appellant seeking a decree restraining him from 
alienating the suit property. 
5. After a full-fledged trial, the suit was dismissed. As 
against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the 
• 
· plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge which 
E 
F 
was also dismissed by upholding the judgment of the trial court. 
Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-respondents filed second 
G 
appeals in the High Court. The High Court without formulating 
substantial question of law heard the appeals and reversed 
the judgment arid decree, passed by the trial court as also of 
the appellate court. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A Hence, these appeals by special leave. 
6. Without expressing any opinion on the mer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.