BALWINDER SINGH versus NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 832 · Decided: 07-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 832 
BALWINDER SINGH 
.v .. 
NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6013 of 2014) 
JULY 07, 2014. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
s. 100 - Second appeal - Requirement of framing 
substantial question of law - High Court admitting the second 
appeal and allowing the same without framing any substantial 
question of law - Held: The second appellate court has no 
0 jurisdiction to admit or decide the second appeal without 
formulating a substantial question of law at the initial stage 
which is a sine qua non for exercising jurisdiction uls 100 -
High Court erred gravely in reversing the judgment and 
decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first 
appellate court without framing any substantial question of law 
E - Impugned judgment is set aside and the judgments and 
decrees passed by trial court as affirmed by first appellate 
court are upheld - Service law. 
The appellant in C.A. No. 6013 of 2014 filed a suit for 
F declaration against the respondent-employer-.for 
declaration that he was entijled to be confirmed as Junior. 
Steno Clerk from the date: he completed the· probation 
period and for injunction claiming increments. and other 
allowances. Th~ appellant in C.A. No. 6015 of 2014 filed 
G a suit for declaration that he was entitled to get the salary 
in the pay scale of Junior Filed Assistant plus usual 
allowances. The trial court decreed both .the suits and the 
first appellate court affirmed tbe said decrees,~ The 
second appeals filed by .the e!'llployer we.re·allowed by 
H 
832 
BALWINDER SINGH v. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. 833 
the High Court and the judgments and decrees passed 
A 
by courts below were set aside. 
· 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the 
appellants that the High Court erred in reversing the 
findings of the courts below without framing aily 
8 
substantial question of law. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The respondent, being the appellant 
before the High Court, did not raise any substantial 
C 
question of law when the memo of appeal was filed. 
Subsequently, by filing civil miscellaneous applications 
in the second appeals, a number of substantial questions 
of law which include question of facts or mixed question 
of facts and law were raised. At the time of admission of o 
the second appeal though the High Court observed that 
substantial question of law were raised at paragraph 13 
of the grounds of appeal, it neither formulated any 
substantial question of law nor did it decide as to which 
out of the six q'uestions of law raised was the substantial 
questions oflaw for admitting the second appeal for its 
determination. Even in the impugned judgment the High 
Court has not referred to any substantial question of law 
for deciding the appeal, obviously, as no substantial 
question of law was framed at the time of admitting the 
second appeal, The High Court erred gravely in reversing 
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as 
affirmed by the first appellate court without framing any 
substantial question of law. [para 19] [842-C~GJ 
E 
F 
2. As the second appellate court has no jurisdiction 
G 
to admit or decide the second appeal without formulating 
a substantial question of law at the initial stage which is 
a sine qua non for exercising jurisdiction u/s 100 CPC., 
the impugned common judgment is set aside, and 
judgments and decrees passed by the trial court as 
H 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A affirmed by the first appellate court are upheld. [para 20-
21] [842-G-H; 843-B] 
Umerkhan vs. Bismil/abi alias Babula/ Shaikh, 2011 (9) 
SCR 551 = (2011) 9 SCC 684; and Hardeep Kaur vs. Malkiat 
8 Kaur, 2012 (2) SCR 478 = (2012) 4 sec 344 - relied on. 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
2011 (9) SCR 551 
2012 (2) SCR 478 
relied on 
relied on 
para 17 
para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6013 of 2014 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2011 in RSA 
No. 3127/2003 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at 
D Chandigarah. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 6015 of 2014. 
E 
Arvind Minocha for the Appellant. 
Pallav Shishodia, Ghanshyam Joshi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. : 1. Leave 
granted. 
2. These appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff(s) -
appellant(s) against the common judgment and decree dated 
2nd August, 2011 passed in RSA No.3127 of 2003 and RSA

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