A
BALLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
PHOOLA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 27, 2002
B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
S. J 00(3)-Second appeal-Dismissed by High Court without considering
C whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration between the
parties-Held, it is expected of the appellant to frame substantial question of
law in the memorandum of appeal-In order to consider and dispose of a
second appeal, substantial question or questions of law should arise for
consideration between the parties-Order of High Court does not indicate
D whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration between the
parties-Matter remitted to High Court to consider whether any substantial
question or questions of law arise for consideration and then dispose of the
second appeal in accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 1356 of
E
1993.
From the Judgment and Order dated I 3 .5.1992 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2112 of 1991.
M.N. Krishnamani, P.K. Jain, P.K. Goswami and S. Pani for the
F Appellants.
G
H
Yashank Adhyaru, Kavin Gulati, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Ms. Aditi
Choudhary and Mrs Manik Karanjawala for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The correctness and validity
of the order passed in a second appeal by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh is questioned in this appeal.
Disposing of the second appeal, the High Court passed the following
364
BALLA RAM v. PHOOLA
365
order:
A
"Heard. No merit.
Dismissed."
The High Court did not consider whether any substantial question or
questions of law arose for consideration between the parties as required under B
Section l 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court has taken the consistent
view that in order to consider and dispose of a second appeal, substantial
question or questions of law should arise for consideration between the parties.
The impugned order does not indicate whether any substantial question or
questions of law arose for consideration between the parties. It is expected C-
of the appellant to frame substantial question of law in the memorandum of
appeal. Sub-Section '(3) of Section 100 C.P.C. states that:
"In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of appeal
shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the
appeal."
In this view, without stating anything more on merits, the impugned
order is set aside.
D
The appeal is allowed accordingly. The matter is remitted to the High
Court to consider whether any substantial q.uestion or questions of law arise E
for consideration and then dispose of the second appeal in accordance with
law.
Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1982, we request
the High Court to dispose of the second appeal within a period of six months
from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
F
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex