LexKANHAIYALAL AND ORS. versus ANUPKUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KANHAIY ALAL AND ORS. v. ANUPKUMAR AND ORS. NOVEMBER 27, 2002 B [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: S. J 00-Second appeal-Requirement of formulating substantial question C of law-Judgment of High Court not indicating any substantial question of law to have been formulated by High Court or that appeals were heard on any substantial question of law-High Court allowing the second appeal .and reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below-- Held, memorandum of a second appeal filed u/s. JOO shall precisely state the D substantial question of law involved in the case as required under sub-section (3)-Where the High Court is satisfied that any substantial quest:on of law is involved, it shall.formulate that question under sub-section (4)-Second appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated as provided in sub-section (5)- Judgments of High Court set aside_;_Matters remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made herein. E /shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, [20001 1 SCC 434 and Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 708, relied on. Judgment-Delay in pronouncement-In second appeals arguments heard by High Court in November 1990---Judgments pronounced on 7.5.1993- F Besides, no substantial question of law formulated by High Court-Second appeals allowed and concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below reversed-Held, judgments of High Court cannot be sustained and, therefore, set aside-Matters remitted to High Court for decision afresh expeditiously-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. l OD-Administration of G Justice. H Bhagwandas Fatehchand Daswani and Ors. v. HPA International and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 1622- 366 i \ ·• KANHAIYALAL v. ANUPKUMAR 367 1623 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1993 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal Nos. 709 and 710 of 1974. A.P. Dhamija, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms. Ruchi Kohli and Sushi I Kumar A Jain for the Appellants. B S.K. Gambhir, R.R. Singh, Anil K. Sharma, Awnish Sinha, T.N. Singh, W.A. Nomani and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The impugned judgments were passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in second appeals reversing the concurrent findings of c fact recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Though the High Court elaborately considered the contentions and the evidence placed D on record, the impugned judgments do not reflect or indicate as to what was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under Section I 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, in support of the impugned judgment, contended that though substantial question of law was E not specifically stated in the impugned judgment, it can be made out from the very judgment that the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court were perverse and perversity itself was a substantial question of law for disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. He also added that in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there is a practice that F substantial question of law is separately framed at the time of admission in the order sheet. We may notice one more fact that the arguments were heard by the High Court and the appeals were reserved for judgment on 2 lst November, 1990. The High Court pronounced the impugned judgments as late as on 7th May, 1993 allowing the appeals, interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. G In a second appeal filed under Section I 00 of the Code of Civil .Procedure, the Memorandum of Appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal as required under sub-section (3). Where the High Court is satisfied that in any case a substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question under sub-section ( 4). The H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A second appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated as stated in sub- section (5). B 1C D E F G H The impugned judgments do not indicate any substantial question of law formulated and that the second appeals were heard on any
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.