C.A. SULAIMAN AND ORS. versus STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ALWAYEE AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 25-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
C.A. SULAIMAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ALWAYEE AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section JOO-Second Appeal-Disposed 
of by High Court without formulating or hearing on any substantial question 
C of la~Propriety of-Held, improper. 
D 
E 
• F 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeals is 
as to whether the High Court erred in disposing of thr. second appeal 
without formulating the substantial question or questions of law, as 
mandated by Section 100 CPC. 
Respondents raised plea that though no substantial question of law 
was formulated before the second appeals were adjudicated, yet that is 
permissible, because proviso to sub-section (5) of Section I 00 permits the 
High Court to decide a second appeal on a different substantial question 
of law subject to recording of reasons. 
' 
Disposing of the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: I. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the High 
Court does not show. that any substantial question of law has been 
formulated or that the second appeal was heard on the question, if any, 
so formulated. That being so, the judgment cannot be maintained. 
(154-F-G( 
/shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal. (200011 SCC 434; Roop Singh v. Ram 
Singh, (20001 3 SCC 708; Kanhaiyalal v. Anupkumar, (20031 I SCC 430; 
G Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors., [200416 SCC 359; Joseph Severane 
and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors., (20051 7 SCC 667 and Sasikumar c.nd 
Ors. v. Kunnath Che/lappan Nair and Ors., 12005( 12 SCC 588, relied on. 
2. The plea about pro,·iso to sub-section (5) of Section JOO instead 
of supporting the stand of the Respondents rather goes against them. The 
H 
I~ 
....
C.A. SULAIMANv. STATEBANKOFTRAVANCORE, ALWAYEE[PASAYAT,J.J 
J 53 
proviso is applicable only when any substantial question of law has already A 
been formulated and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to 
be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law. The 
expression "on any other substantial question of law" clearly shows that 
there must be some substantial question of law already formulated and 
then only another substantial question of law which was not formulated B 
earlier can be taken up by the High Court for reasons to be recorded, if 
it is of the view that the case involves such question. 1156-C-DI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4241-4243 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order and dated 17.11.1997 of the High Court C 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. Nos. 311, 517 and 885 of 1988. 
Subramonium Prasad and Jay Kishor Singh for the Appellants. 
P. Krishnamoorty, M.T. George, T.G. Narayanan Nair, A. Subhashini, D 
A.V. Rangam, Roy Abraham and Himinder Lal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment 
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court allowing the E 
Second Appeals filed by the respondents by a common judgment. By the 
impugned judgment the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as the 
First Appellate Court were set aside. 
It is not necessary to set out the factual details in view of the limited 
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 
F 
Learned coun5el for the appellants submitted that the High Court was 
not justified in disposing of the Second Appeals without formulating the 
substantial question or questions of law, as mandated by Section 100 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). 
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the High 
Court has not formulated the questions of law as required, yet on analyzing 
the evidence, it concluded that the views expressed by the courts below were 
not tenable in law. That is why the Second Appeals were allowed. 
G 
It is further submitted that though no substantial question of law was H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A fo1mulated before the Second Appeals were adjudicated, yet that is permissible, 
because proviso to sub Section (5) of Section I 00 permits the High Court to 
decide a Second Appeal on a diffi:rent substantial question of law subject to 
recording of reasons. 
Section I 00 of the Code deals with .. Second Appeal". The provision 
B reads as follows: 
c 
.. JOO (I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this 
Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.