SHRI RAJENDRA LALITKUMAR AGRAWAL versus SMT. RATNA ASHOK MURANJAN & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 31-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
SHRI RAJENDRA LALITKUMAR AGRAWAL
v.
SMT. RATNA ASHOK MURANJAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.1331 of 2019)
JANUARY 31, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 100(4), (5) – Second
appeal – Substantial question of law – On facts, suit for specific
performance of contract on basis of an agreement – Decreed by
the trial court, however, set aside by the first Appellate Court – In
second appeal, dismissal by the High Court on the ground that it
does not involve any substantial question of law – Justification of –
Held: Interpretation of any terms and conditions of a document
such as the agreement which is admitted by the parties, constitutes
a substantial question of law within the meaning of s.100 – High
Court should have framed substantial question of law in relation to
the true intent, rights and obligations arising from the agreement –
Also it could have framed questions on the issues material for grant
or refusal of specific performance – High Court decided the second
appeal bipartite like the first appeal without keeping in view the
scope of its jurisdiction conferred by s.100 (4) and (5) – Approach
of the High Court not in conformity with the requirements of s.100
– Thus, the matter remanded to High Court for deciding the second
appeal after framing substantial question of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court was not right in holding that
the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within
the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The appeal did involve the substantial question of law and the
same, therefore, should have been framed at the time of admission
of the second appeal as provided under Section 100 (4) for its
final hearing. Indeed Section 100 (5) provides that the appeal
shall be heard only on the substantial question of law framed by
the High Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code. [Para 11][818-
C-D]
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 815
815
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
1.2 It cannot be disputed that the interpretation of any terms
and conditions of a document (such as the agreement in this case)
constitutes a substantial question of law within the meaning of
Section 100 of the Code. It is more so when both the parties
admit the document. Since the interpretation of documents
constitutes the substantial question of law, the High Court should
have first framed appropriate substantial question(s) arising in
the case especially on the questions in relation to the true intent,
rights and obligations arising from the agreement in the context
of pleadings and the reversing findings of the two courts below
and then should have called upon the respondents to reply to the
questions framed keeping in view its jurisdiction under Section
100(5) and its proviso. In addition, the High Court also could
have framed questions on the issues, which are material for grant
or refusal of specific performance keeping in view the
requirements of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, pleadings
of the parties, and the reversing findings of the two courts below
on such issues with a view to find out as to which finding is more
preferable. [Paras 12-14][818-E-H; 819-A]
1.3 From the reading the impugned order, it is found that
on one hand, the High Court went on interpreting the terms of
the document after hearing the argument of both sides and on
the other hand, in conclusion, held that it does not involve any
substantial question of law. It virtually, therefore, decided the
second appeal bipartite like the first appeal without keeping in
view the scope of its jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 (4)
and (5) of the Code. The approach of the High Court while
deciding the second appeal was not in conformity with the
requirements of Section 100. While setting aside the impugned
order, the case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the
second appeal on merits in accordance with law after framing
appropriate substantial question of law arising in the case. [Para
15][819-B-C, E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1331
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 44 of 2017.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
817
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Makarand D. Adkar, Braj K. Mishra,
Vijay Kumar, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Advs. for the Appellant.
R.B. Singhal, Sr. Adv.,  R.K. Singh, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.