TANUKU TALUK VILLAGE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION versus TANUKU MUNICIPALITY & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1063 · Decided: 12-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
TANUKU TALUK VILLAGE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
v.
TANUKU MUNICIPALITY & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2918-2921 of  2019)
MARCH 12, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Two civil suits filed
by the appellant against the respondents in relation to the land in
question – Suits decreed vide order dated 14.08.1996 – Appellant
also filed suit before the Rent Controller for eviction of respondent
no.1– Rent Controller vide order dated. 20.01.1997 passed order
in favour of the appellant – Challenged by respondent no.1, which
was allowed – Appellant filed application in the suit before the Rent
Controller for releasing of cheque of Rs.42,400/- deposited by
respondent no.1 towards the rent and arrears of the suit land –
Dismissed vide order dated 14.05.1997 – Challenged by appellant,
which was dismissed and order dated 14.05.1997 was confirmed –
Respondent no.1 filed appeals against order dated 14.08.1996,
which was allowed and order dated 14.08.1996 was set aside –
Appellant filed second appeals in the High Court – High Court
dismissed the appeals – Revision petitions also dismissed by High
Court – Held: Though the High Court framed three substantial
questions but did not answer any of them on their respective merit
either way – Instead it dismissed the second appeals on the question,
which it had not framed – High Court failed to see that the second
appeal could be decided only on the question(s) framed u/s. 100
(4), CPC, 1908 – Appeals remanded to the High Court for hearing
afresh on the merits and in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court though admitted the second
appeals on the three substantial questions of law but instead of
answering these questions, dismissed the appeals by answering
the question, which was not framed. The High Court failed to see
that the second appeal could be decided only on the question(s)
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1063
1063
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
framed under Section 100 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (“the Code”).  However, if at the time of hearing, the High
Court considers that the second appeal involves any other
substantial question(s) of law, it has the jurisdiction to frame such
question(s) but only by assigning the reasons.  At the same time,
the respondent is also entitled to argue at the time of hearing
that the question(s) though framed are not the substantial
question(s) of law involved in appeal (Section 100 (5) of the Code
and its proviso). [Paras 17, 18] [1067-C-F]
1.2  A fortiori, the disposal of the second appeal by the High
Court by answering the question(s) which was/were not framed
either at the time of admission of the second appeal or framed
without ensuring compliance of the mandatory procedure
prescribed in proviso to Section 100 (5) of the Code is not legally
sustainable. Though the High Court framed three substantial
questions but did not answer any of them on their respective
merit either way. Instead the High Court dismissed the second
appeals on the question, which it had not framed. The question
on which the High Court dismissed the appeals was in relation to
the maintainability of the suit and this question was not a part of
the three questions framed and nor the High Court framed such
question by taking recourse to powers under Section 100(5)
proviso of the Code. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals
are remanded to the High Court for their hearing afresh on the
merits and in accordance with law. No opinion expressed on the
merits of the case having formed an opinion to remand the case
to the High Court for their fresh disposal on the merits. The
High Court will accordingly decide the second appeals as well as
revision petitions uninfluenced by any observations made in the
impugned order and this order.  [Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23] [1068-
F-H; 1069-A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal Nos. 2918-
2921 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2015 of the  High
Court of Judicature  at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and The
State of Andhra Pradesh in Second Appeal Nos. 396 and 414 of 2004
and C.R.P. Nos. 2069 and 2073 of 2004.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1065
K. Raghavacharyulu, Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh, Ms. Arunima
Pal, Ms. Nupur Sharma, J. K. Mishra (for Gaichangpou Gangmei), Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar,  Prashant M., Advs. f

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