LexKOPPISETTY VENKAT RATNAM (D) THROUGH LRS. versus PAMARTI VENKAYAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 574 A KOPPISETTY VENKAT RATNAM (D) THROUGH LRS. B v. PAMARTI VENKAYAMMA (Civil Appeal No.1165 of 2009) FEBRUARY 23, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: c S.100 after 1976 Amendment - Despite clear enunciation of law by Supreme Court, concurrent findings of fact are disturbed by High Courts without formulating substantial question of law - Remitting such matters lead to loss of several years in the process - For the litigants it is both 0 extremely expensive and time consuming leading to delay in administration of justice in civil matters - In the facts of the case, the second appeal is remitted to High Court which would dispose it of as expeditiously as possible - 54th Report of Law Commission of India. E Bholaram v. Amirchand (1981) 2 SCC 414; Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438; Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (1999) 2 SCC 471; Sheet Chand v. Prakash Chand (1998) 6 SCC 683; Kanai Lal Garari v. Murari Gangu/y (1999) 6 SCC F 35; Panchugopa/ Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997) 4 SCC 713; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179; K. Raj and Anr. v. Muthamma (2001) 6 SCC 279; lshwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal (2000) 1 SCC 434; Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708; Kamti Devi (Smt.) G and Anr. v. Poshi Ram (2001) 5 SCC 311; Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalaswamy 8. Koil (2004) 5 SCC 762; Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments v. P. Shanmugama (2005) 9 SCC 232; State of Kera/a v. Mohd. Kunhi (2005) 10 SCC 139; Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai H 574 ' . * - KOPPISETIY VENKAT RATNAM (D) THROUGH LRS. v. 575 PAMARTI VENKAYAMMA -· . (2005) 10 SCC 553; Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh (2005) 12 A SCC 270; H. P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa (2006) 2 SCC 496; Chandrika Singh (Dead) by LRS & Another v. Sarjug Singh • & Another (2006) 12 SCC 49; Chacko & Another v . Mahadevan (2007) 7 SCC 363; Bokka Subba Rao v. Kukka/a Balakrishna & Others (2008) 3 SCC 99; Nune Prasad & B Others v. Nune Ramakrishna (2008) 8 SCC 258; Basayyal .. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad & Others (2008) 3 SCC 120; Dharam Singh v. Kamai/ Singh & Others, (2008) 9 SCC 759; Narendra Gopa/ Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi, 2008 (16) SCALE 122 and U.R. Virupakshaiah v. Sarvamma & c Another, 2009 (1) SCALE 89, referred to. CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1165 of 2009. • From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2007 of the High D Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in S.A. No. 865 of 1997. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Gouri Karuna Das, Anu Gupta and Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner. E T.N. Rao, M. Mahapatra and Manjeet Kirpal for the ..or Petitioner . • The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER F 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at G :.t Hyderabad in Second Appeal No.865 of 1997. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant raised a preliminary objection that in the impugned judgment, the High Court has set-aside the concurrent findings of facts H 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R. . . A of two courts without formulating any substantial question of law which is mandatory according to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure after 1976 Amendment. 4. There is considerable material which led to 1976 B Amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure. Legislative Background in the 54th Re~ort of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1973: 5. The comprehensive 54th Report of the Law c Commission of India submitted to the Government of India in 1973 gives historical background regarding ambit and scope of Section 100 C.P.C. According to the said report, any rational system of administration of civil law should recognize that litigation in civil cases should have two hearings on facts - one D by the trial court and one by the court of appeal. • 6. In the 54th Report of the Law Commission of India, it is incorporated that it may be permissible to point out that a search for absolute truth in the administration of justice, however, laudable, must in the very nature of things be put under E some reasonable restraint. In other words, a search for truth has to be reconciled with the doctrine of finality. In judicial hierarchy finality is absolutely important because that gives certainty to • the law. Even in the inte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.