STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus GRAM VIKAS SAMITI, SHIVDASPURA

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
GRAM VIKAS SAMITI, SHIVDASPURA
(Civil Appeal No. 3505 of 2009)
JANUARY 07, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Substantial question
of law – Suit filed by respondent-society against the State and its
authorities seeking permanent injunction against appellants
restraining them from interfering in the respondent’s possession over
the suit land – Trial court decreed the suit – State’s appeal dismissed
– High Court also dismissed State’s appeal on the ground that the
appeal did not involve any substantial question of law – On appeal,
held: High Court did not assign any reasons while dismissing the
appeal nor discussed the case on facts or law –  Even the cursory
reading of the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate
court showed that the second appeal did involve substantial question
of law – Therefore, the second appeal should have been admitted
for final hearing by framing proper substantial question of law
arising in the case under s.100  for its final disposal – Matter
remitted to High Court for consideration afresh.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD:  The High Court did not discuss nor dealt with any
issues arising in the case nor dealt with any submissions urged
by the appellant with a view to show as to how and on what basis
the findings impugned in the second appeal were bad in law and
why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law.
This Court cannot countenance such casual approach of the High
Court in disposing of the second appeal, which does not decide
nor deals with any issue(s) arising in the case. The dispute
involved in the second appeal related to the State land and its
title and possession.  It should have been adjudicated in the light
of legal principle applicable to the case, pleadings and evidence.
[Paras 9, 10 and 12][61-E-F; 62-A-B]
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 59
59
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3505
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated  20.04.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B . Civil
Regular Second Appeal No. 186 of 2007.
Ajay Choudhary, Adv. for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil
Regular Second Appeal No.186 of 2007 whereby the Single Judge of
the High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants herein
and affirmed the order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the first Appellate
Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003.
2. Few facts need mention infra for disposal of this appeal.
3. The State and its authorities are the appellants herein. They
are the defendants whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit
out of which this appeal arises.
4. The respondent claiming to be the Society filed a civil suit against
the State and its authorities in relation to the suit land. The suit was for
grant of relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants
(defendants) from interfering in the respondent’s (plaintiff’s) possession
over the suit land. It was contested by the appellants (defendants).
5. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated 26.09.2002 in Civil
Suit No.38 of 2000  decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction to
the respondent (plaintiff) and against the appellants (defendants) in relation
to the suit land. The defendants (State) felt aggrieved and filed first
appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur being Regular Civil
Appeal No. 37 of 2003. By Judgment dated 15.07.2006, the first Appellate
Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court giving rise to filing of the Second appeal by the State
before the High Court.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal
in limine holding that the appeal does not involve any substantial question
of law and hence this appeal by special leave by the State in this Court
against the impugned order.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
7. None appeared for the parties. We, therefore, perused the
record of the case. Having perused the record, we are of the view that
this appeal has to be allowed and the case deserves to be remanded to
the High Court for deciding the State’s seco

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