LexCHADAT SINGH versus BAHADUR RAMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
CHADAT SINGH
v.
BAHADUR RAMA AND ORS.
AUGUST 3, 2004
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section JOO-Second appeal-
Disposal of by High Court without formulating substantial question of
law-Justification of-Held : It is for the High Court to formulate a
C substantial question of/aw and hear the appeal on the questionformulated-
In absence of the same, such judgment cannot be maintained and matter
is remitted back to High Court for fresh decision.
In these appeals, the issue involved was as to whether the High
D Court was justified in disposing of the second appeal without formulating
the substantial question of law, as mandated by Section 199 CPC.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In view of Section 100 CPC, 1908, the memorandum
E of appeal shall precisely state substantial question or questions of law
involved in the appeal as required under sub-section (3) of Section 100.
Where High Court is satisfied that in any case any substantial question
of law is involved it shall formulate that question under sub-section (4)
and the second appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated
F as stated in sub-section (5) of Section 100. (300-A-B(
1.2. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned judgment
passed by 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 and as such the judgment cannot be
G maintained. The matters are remitted back to High Court for disposal
in accordance with law. [300-H; 301-A; 302-B]
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434; Roop Singh v.
Ram Singh, [20001 3 SCC 708 and Kanahaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar
H and Ors., JT (2002) 10 SC 98, referred to.
298
CHADAT SINGH v. BAHADUR RAMA [PASAYAT, J.]
299
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4903- A
4905 of 2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.2002 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.M. No. 29-C/2002, C.M. No. 2070-C of 2002
and order 10.8.2001 passed in RSA No. 594 of 1995.
B
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Ms. Madhusmita Bora and Nikhil
Jain, for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.
As the only point on which notice was issued related to the desirability
of disposing of the Second Appeal in tenns of Section 100 of the Code
c
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') without fonnulating the D
substantial question of law by the High Court, it is not necessary to deal
with the factual aspects in detail. The second appel!l and two miscellaneous
petitions were disposed of by a common judgment which fonn matrix of
the present appeals.
Respondent-Bahadur Ram filed a suit for specific perfonnance E
against 9 defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However,
the same was upset by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra
Bahadur Ram filed Second Appeal No. 594/1995 against the judgment of
learned Additional District Judge. By the impugned judgment the trial
Court's judgment and decree have been restored and that of the first F
Appellate Court was reversed.
Thought various points were urged by learned counsel for the
appellant it is not necessary to go into those aspects in view of the limited
scope of the present appeals in view of the notice issued. There is no G
appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the High Court was not justified in disposing of the Second Appeal without
formulating the substantial question or questions of law as mandated by
Section JOO of the Code.
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
In view of Section JOO of the Code the memorandum of appeal shall
precisely state substantial question or questions of law involved in the
appeal as required under sub-section (3) of Section I 00. Where the High
Court is satisfied that in any case any substantial question oflaw is involved
it shall formulate that question under sub-section (4) and the second appeal
B has to be heard on the question so formulated as stated in sub-section (5)
of Section 100.
Section 100 of the Code deals with "Second Appeal". The provision
reads as follows :
C
"Section 100-{I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in
the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in
force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree
passeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.