LexMATHAKALA KRISHNAIAH versus V. RAJAGOPAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
..
MA THAKALA KRISHNAIAH
A
v.
V. RAJAGOPAL
OCTOBER 15, 2004
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.]
B
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 substantial question of law C
and hear the appeal on the question formulated-Jn 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 Court
was justified in disposing of the second appeal without formulating the D
substantial question of law, as mandated by Section 100 CPC.
Appellant contended that the High Court can only exercise its
jurisdiction under section 100 CPC in Second Appeal on the basis of
substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting appeal; and that a
second Appeal can be heard and decided only on the.basis of substantial E
question or' law, if any and as such the judgment of High Court is not
sustainable in law.
Respondent contended that the question of law is self evident and on a
technical plea that a question has not been framed, the well reasoned judgment
should not be set aside.
F
Disposing of the appeals, th~ Court
HELD: 1.1. In view of Section 100 CPC, 1908, 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 100. Where High Court G
is satisfied that in any case any substantial question of law is involved it shall
formulate that question under suf>.:section (4) and the second appeal has to be
heard on the question so formulated as stated in sub-section (5) of Section
100 CPC. [549-D-E)
547
H
A
B
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
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 maintained. The matters are
remitted back to High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
(550-C; 551-E]
/shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000] l SCC 434; Roop Singh v. Ram
Singh, [2000) 3 SCC 708; Kanahaiyalal and Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors., JT
(2002) 10 SC 98; R.Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi {2001] 4 SCC 688; MS. V.
Raja and Anr. v. Seeni Thevar and Ors., (2001( 6 SCC 652; R. V.E.
C Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr.,
(2003] 8 SCC 752; Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagadish La/ita and
Ors., [20041 1 SCC 271 and Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors., Civil
Appeal Nos. 4903-4905/2005 decided by SC on 3rd August, 2004, referred
to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION : '2ivil Appeal Nos. 6784-6785 of
2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in S.A. No. 139/96 and C.M.P. No. 4378 of2003.
E
Sridhar Reddy, V. Ramesh and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant.
M.N. Rao and S. Thananjayan with him for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted.
F
By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and decree passed by
learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Nellore. The present respondent was
the plaintiff in the original suit which was on the file of !st Additional District
Munsif Court, Nellore. He was the appellant before the High Court. Though
G the trial Court had decided in favour of the plair.tiff (respondent herein), as
noted above the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of
the trial Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff
filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was disposed of by the
impugned judgment. The High Court directed restoration of the judgment and
H decree of the trial Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the first
y
MATHAKALAKRISHNAIAHv. V.RAJAGOPAL[PASAYAT,J.]
549
Appellate Court.
Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal
plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment and
decree of the first Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of
law as enjoined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short
A
the 'Code'). The High Court can only eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.