LexDHARAM SINGH versus KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A .- ' B [2008] 14 S.C.R. 366 DHARAM SINGH v. . KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 2008) OCTOBER 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J:M. PANCHAL, JJ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: .· s: 100(5), proviso - Second appeal - Allowed by High C Court without formulating any substantial question of law - HELD: Proviso to sub-section (5) to s. 100 is applicable only when any substantial question of law has already been formu- /a_ted and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of D · law...:.... The impugned judgment does not show that any sub- stantial question of law has been formulated and the second appeal was heard on such question - The judgment of High Court set aside and the matter remitted to it for decision afresh '' in ac_corda17ce with law. . E ~The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for a declaration that he·had·become owner of the suit property by way of ex- tinguishmentof equity of redemption qua the rights of the defendants; and further for consequential relief of restrain- ing the defendants from transferring the suit property in F favour of any body. The trial Court decreed the suit and - the ·first appellate Court upheld the decree. However, in the second appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts · below' and dismissed the suit. G H In the instant appeal filed by the defendant, it was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal without formulating any ques- tion of law as required u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Proce- 366 t ' . ,.... } Y' ' 1-- , DHARAM SINGH v. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. 367 ~i du re, 1908. The judgment of the High Court was defended A on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff on the ground pro- viso to sub-section (5) of s.100 of the Code. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The judgment passed by the High Court B 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 judg- ment cannot be maintained. [para 7] [370-G] /shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 c =2000 (1) SCC 434; Roop Singh v. Ram Singh 2000 (2) SCR 605 = 2000 (3) SCC 708; Kanhaiya/al v. Anupkumar 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 = 2003 (1) SCC 430; Chad at Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors. 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 298 = 2004 (6) SCC 359; Joseph Severane and Others v. Benny Mathew and D Others 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 429 = 2005 (7) SCC 667; Sasikumar and Others v. Kunnath Chel/appan Nair and 0th- ers 2005 (12) SCC 588; and Gian Dass v. Gram Panchayat, Village Sunnder Kalan and Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 781 = 2006 (6) sec 271 - relied on. E 1.2 The proviso to sub-s.(5) of s.100 CPC is appli- cable only when any substantial question of .law has al- ready been formulated and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any F " ' other substantial question of law. The expression "on any l \ other substantial question of law" clearly shows that there must be some substantial question of law already formu- lated and then only another substantial question of law which was not formulated earlier can be taken up by the High Court for reasons to be recorded, if it is of the view G that the case involves such question. [para 13] [372 A-C] ......... ~. 1.3 The impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court so far as it relates to Second Appeal No.285 of 2000 for disposal in accordance H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A with law. (para 14] [372 - D] '1~- CASE LAW REFERENCE 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 relied on para 8 2000 (2) SCR 605 relied on para 9 B 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 relied on para 10 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 298 relied on para 11 ~ 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 429 ·relied on para 12 2005 (12) sec 588 relied on para 12 c 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 781 relied on para 12 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 2008 D From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.7.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RS.A. No. 285 of 2000 '/ ' Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu for the Appellant. E Arvinder Singh and Jitendra Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. Chall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.