LexNUNE PRASAD AND ORS. versus NUNE RAMAKRISHNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, [2008] 11 S.C.R. 435
NUNE PRASAD AND ORS.
A
v.
NUNE RAMAKRISHNA
(Civil Appeal No; 4701 of 2008)
JULY 29, 2008
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second ap-
peal-:- Substantial question of law - Non-formulation .:. Eff~ct c
of - On facts, second appeal allowed by High Court - Order
does not show that substantial question of law was formulated
or appeal was heard on any question so formulated - Thus,
order of High Court set aside - Matters remitted to High Court.
The question which aros~ for consideration in this D
~
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in al-
lowing the second appeal without framing any substan-
tial question~ of law as mandated by s. 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: A perusal of the impugned judgment passed
by the 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.
F
,._...(
That being so, the judgment cannot be maintained, which
is set aside and remitted back to the High Court for pro-
c~~ding in the matter in accordance with law and fn terms
of observat_ions made herein. [Para 5] [438-D-E]
lshwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 2000 (1) SCC 434;_Roop G
Singh v. Ram Singh 2000 (3) SCC 708; Kanhaiyalal and Ors.
-'\r
v. An_upkumar and Ors_. 2003 (1) SCC 430; Mathakala
Krishnaiah v. V Rajagopal 2004(10) SCC 676; Smt. Ram
Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi and Ors.: JT 2005 (6) SC 167;
~
435
H
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
Sasikumar and Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Ors. 2005
(12) SCC 588; Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village
Sunner Kalan and Ors. 2006 (6) SCC 271; Shah Mansukhla/
Chhaganial (d) through Lrs. v. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d)
through Lrs. 2006(13) SCALE 99 - relied on.
B
c
D
Case Law Reference
2000 (1 > sec 434
Relied on.
Para 6
2000 (3) sec 108
Relied on.
Para 7
2003 (1) sec 430
Relied on.
Para 8
2004 (1 O) sec 676
Relied on.
Para 8
JT 2005 (6) SC 167
Relied on.
Para 8
2005 (12) sec 588
Relied on.
Para 8
2006 (6) sec 211
Relied on.
Para 8
2006 (13) SCALE 99 Relied on.
Para 8
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDrCTION: Civil Appeal No. 4701
of 2008
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2006 of
F
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyerabad in Second Ap-
peal No. 512 of 2001
T.V. Ratnam for the Appellants.
Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
G Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent under Sec-
tion 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC').
3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
H
The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S. No.78of1990 before the
NUNE PRASAD & ORS. v. NUNE
437
RAMAKRISHNA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ·
Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra
A
Pradesh against the respondent-defendant. The Trial Court by
the judgment and order dated 27.06.1995 held that the plaintiffs
are the owners of the schedule property and they being the own-
ers of the schedule property are entitled to possession.Aggrieved
by the judgment and decree of the Trial court, the respondent-
B
---('
defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District
Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. By judgment and
order dated 14.06.2001, the first appellate court confirmed the
Trial Court's judgment. The respondent-defendant preferred a
second appeal under Section 100 C.P:C. before the High Court c
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, being Second Appeal No.512
of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
allowed the second appeal and the judgments and decree passed
by the courts below were set aside.
Though many points have been urged in support of the
D
appeal, the primary stand of the learned counsel for the appel-
~
!ants is that the second appeal was allowed without framing
any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100
CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though
the High Court's judgment does not show that any substantial E
question of law was framed yet learned Single Judge has al-
lowed the appeal after analyzing the factual position in the back-
ground of settlExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.