LexRAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT versus UTTARADI MUTT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 11
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT
v.
UTTARADI MUTT
(Civil Appeal No.3190of2016)
MARCH 30, 2016
(DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss. 100, 96; Or. XL!, r 5(3),
Or. XLJ!, r 1, 2 - Second appeal - Formulation of substantial
question of law - On facts, the High Court not admitting second
appeal as no substantial question of law formulated and vacated
the interi111 order passed in IA - Whether the High Court could
entertain IA seeking interim relief - Held: High Court cannot ad111it
a second appeal without examining whether it raises any substantial
question of law for admission and thereafte1; it is obliged to for111ulate
the substantial question of law - Solely because the Court has the
iurisdiction to pass an ex parte order, it does not e111power it not to
formulate the substantial question of law for the purpose of
admission, defer the date of admission and pass an order of stay or
grant an interim relief - It is not the sche111e of CPC after its
amendment in 1976 - Thus, the High Court rectified its mistake by
vacating the order passed in IA and was the correct approach
adopted by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant ease, the High Court has not yet
admitted the matter. It is not in dispute that no substantial question
of law has been formulated as it could not have been when the
appeal has not been admitted. As appeal under Section 100 CPC
is required to be admitted only on substantial question/questions
of law. It cannot be formal admission like an appeal under Section
96 CPC. That is the fundamental imperative. It is peremptory in
character, and that makes the principle absolutely cardinal. [Para
18) [19-D)
1.2 For passing an ex parte order, the Court has to keep in
mind the postulates provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order
XLI. The Court is obligated to keep in view the language
employed under Section 100 CPC. It is because formulation of
substantial question of law enables the High Court to entertain
11
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
A
an appeal and thereafter proeeed to pass an order. The Court
has the jurisdiction to pass an interim order subject to the language
employed in Order XLI. Rule si3). It is clear that the High Court
cannot admit a second appeal without examining whether it raises
any substa'ntial question of law· for admission and thereafter, it is
B
obliged to .formulate the substantial question oflaw. Solely because
. . the Court has the jurisdiction to pass an ex parte order, it does
... .µot .empower it 11ot.to formulate the substantial question of law
~' : for tli~ ptjrp_ti~e· of· a~mission, defe'r the date of admission and
.... pass 1,m 9rd~~ .. ()(~t~y :or.grn11Umi.11,terim relief. That is not the
,'.".sch~irie. 6f CP.Caff~r 'its aiherl'd.i:Ileritin 1976 and that is not the
C
·tenor of precedents of this Court'and it has been clearly so stated
in Ram Plia/ case •. Therefore, the High Court has rectified its
. mistake by vacating the ·order passed in IA and it is the correct
approach adopted by the High Court. Thus, the impugned order
is absolutely impregnable. [Para 23) [21-G-H; 22-A-C]
D
E
F
G
H
1.3 The iiigh Court is requested to take up the second appeal
for admission and, if it finds that there is a substantial question of
law involved, proceed accordingly and ·deal with IA as required
in law. The interim order passed by this Court on earlier occasion
should not be construed as an expression of any opinion from
any count. It was a pure and simple ml interim arrangement. [Para
24) [22-D-E)
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Others
AIR 2000 SC 3032 : 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 303; Ram
Phal v. Banarasi & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 762; !shwar
Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 : (2000)
1 SCC 434; Roop Sinf;{h v. Ram Sinf;{h 2000 (2) SCR
605 : (2000) 3 SCC 708; Municipal Committee,
Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEE & Others 2010 (13) SCR
658 : (2010) 13 SCC 216; Umerkhan v. Bismillabi alias
Babula! Shaikh and Others 2011 (9) SCR 551 : (2011)
9 sec 684 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 303
(2003) 11 sec 762
1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24
20QQ (2) SCR 605
referred to
referred to
referred to
referred to
Para 6
Para 11
Para 14
Para 15
- . . : '
RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT v .. UTTARADI MUTT
13
2010 (13) SCR 658
21)11 (9) SCR 551
"
.
rt'ferred to
referred ~o
Para 16 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.