SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKE versus SAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 21-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 488 : 2023 INSC 846
488
CASE DETAILS
SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKE
v.
SAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6070 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in the absence of aﬀ ording adequate 
opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing the framed substantial 
questions of law, the High Court could have proceeded to decide the same 
in an appeal u/s.100, CPC  particularly, when the ﬁ ndings of fact rendered 
by two Courts, were sought to be reversed; and further, whether without 
summoning and perusing the trial record, ﬁ ndings of fact could have been 
reversed by High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.100, CPC.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Scope:
Held: A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame 
substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in 
exceptional circumstances – Post such framing of questions, the Court shall 
proceed to hear the parties on such questions after giving them adequate 
time to meet and address them – It is only after such hearing subsequent 
to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided – Further, in 
ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with 
ﬁ nding of fact, however, if it does ﬁ nd any compelling reason to do so as 
regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, 
on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought 
to be upturned – s.100(5) suggests that there is a gap between framing of 
the questions at admission and hearing, as the proviso thereto gives an 
opportunity to the Court to frame additional questions at the time of hearing, 
on which the parties would have to be heard as well – Meaning thereby, that 
the questions framed at the time of admission, at such point of subsequent 
framing of questions are already known to the parties and they have had time 
489
to prepare to address arguments on the same – It is during the arguments 
that a further important issue is discovered and a question in that regard is 
framed, with the parties then being granted time to meet that question as 
well – In the present case, the parties were not given the requisite time to 
meet the questions framed by the Court – Questions of law were framed 
on the second date of hearing, the parties were heard right then and there, 
and the second appeal was disposed of with the judgment being dictated 
and ﬁ ndings of fact reversed – Further, impugned judgment overturned 
concurrent ﬁ ndings of fact in respect of readiness and willingness on the 
part of plaintiﬀ  to perform the contract, without pointing out the exceptional 
circumstance or the perversity in the ﬁ ndings which were returned by the 
Courts below – For the Court to have done so, the actual evidence which 
was before the Courts below had to be called for – Impugned Judgement set 
aside – Matter remanded to High Court. [Paras 21, 23-25, 27, 28]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Principles 
reiterated.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors. (1997) 4 
SCC 713:[1997] 2 SCR 12; Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007) 1 SCC 546:[2006] 
1 Suppl. SCR 27; Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. (2019) 17 
SCC 71:[2019] 9 SCR 776; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 
3 SCC 179:[2001] 1 SCR 948; Government of Kerala v. Joseph 2023 
SCC OnLine SC 961; Chandrabhan v. Saraswati 2022 SCC OnLine SC 
1273; Umerkhan v. Bimillabi (2011) 9 SCC 684:[2011] 9 SCR 551; Shiv 
Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 678:[2011] 10 
SCR 787; Gajaraba Bhikhubha Vadher v. Sumara Umar Amad (2020) 11 
SCC 114; Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd.  v. Roofrite (P) Ltd (2009) 16 SCC 280; 
U.R. Virupakshappa v. Sarvamangala (2009) 2 SCC 177:[2008] 17 SCR 
877; Mehboob-Ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghani (2019) 19 SCC 415; B.C. 
Shivashankara v. B.R. Nagaraj (2007) 15 SCC 387:[2007] 3 SCR 389; 
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai (2020) 16 
SCC 255:[2019] 13 SCR 152; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan 
Gujar (1999) 3 SCC 722:[1999] 2 SCR 728; Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali 
(2010) 12 SCC 740:[2010] 7 SCR 222; Hamida v. Mohd. Khalil (2001) 5 
SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKE v. SAU. SUMANBAI 
PANDURANG PETKAR 
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
SCC 30; Avtar  Singh  &  Ors.  v. Bimla Devi & Ors. (2021) 13 SCC 816; 
Nazir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.