V.RAMASWAMY versus RAMACHANDRAN & ANR

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 17-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 520 
-
.. 
A 
V. RAMASWAMY 
v. 
RAMACHANDRAN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2009) 
APRIL 17, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
• 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second 
c appeal - Disposal of, by High Court without formulating 
substantial question of law - Justification of - Held: High Court 
is to formulate a substantial question of law and hear the 
appeal on the question formulated - In absence of the same, 
judgment cannot be maintained - Matter remitted back to 
D High Court. 
.. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal, was whether the High Court was justified in 
disposing of the second appeal without formulating the 
substantial question of law, as mandated by section 
E 100 CPC. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: A perusal of the impugned judgment passed 
F by High Court does not show that any substantial 
question of law has been formulated or that the second 
appeal was heard on the question, if any, so formulated 
and as such the judgment cannot be maintained and is 
set aside. Matter is remitted to High Court to decide after 
G 
formulating substantial question of law, if any. [Para 6] 
[523-A-C] 
lshwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 2000 (1) SCC 434; Roop 
Singh v. Ram Singh 2000 (3) SCC 708; Kanahaiyalal and 
Ors. v. Anupkumar and Ors. 2003 (1) SCC 430; Mathakala 
H 
520 
... 
' • 
. l 
V.RAMASWAMY v. RAMACHANDRAN & ANR. 
521 
KrishnaiClh v. V. Rajagopal 2004 (10) SCC 676; Smt. Ram 
Sakhi Oevi v. Chhatra Devi & Ors. JT 2005 (6) SC 167; 
Sasikumar & Ors. v. Kunnath Chel/appan Nair & Ors. 2005 
(12) SCC 588; Gian Dass v. The Gram Panchayat Village 
Sunner Kalan & Ors. 2006 (6) SCC 271; Shah Mansukhla/ 
Chhagania/ (D) through Lrs. v. Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai 
(0) through Lrs. 2006 (13) SCALE 99; Nune Prasad & Ors. 
v. Nune Ramarisna 2008 (8) SCC 258, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2000 (1) sec 434 
Relied on 
Para 6 
2000 (3) sec 108 
Relied on 
Para 7 
2003 (1) sec 430 
Relied on 
Para 8 
l 
2004 (10) sec 676 
Relied on 
Para 8 
JT 2005 (6) SC 167 
Relied on 
Para 8 
2005 (12) sec 588 
Relied on 
Para 8 
2006 (6) sec 211 
Relied on 
Para 8 
2006 (13) SCALE 99 
Relied on 
Para 8 
2008 (8) sec 258 
Relied on 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 
2634 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 10.1.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 321 of 
1995. 
V. Mohanan for the Appellant. 
V. Prabh~kar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for 
r the Respond~nts. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJ~AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowing the second 
appeal filed by the respondents under Section 100 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). 
3. Though many points have been urged in support of the 
8 
appeal, the primary stand of the learned counsel for the 
appellants is that the second appeal was allowed without 
framing any substantial question of law as mandated by 
Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the respondent 
submitted that though the High Court's judgment does not show 
C that any substantial question of law was framed yet learned 
Single Judge has allowed the appeal after analyzing the factual 
position in the background of settled principles in law. 
4. Section 100 of CPC deals with "Second Appeal". The 
o provision reads as follows: 
j 
"Section 100-Second Appeal: (1) Save as otherwiA 
expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other 
law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the 
High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any 
E 
Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is 
satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of 
law. 
F 
G 
H 
(2) An appeal may lie.under this section from an appellate 
decree passed ex parte. 
(3) In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of 
appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law 
involved in the appeal. 
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial 
question of law is involved in any case, it st:iall formulate 
that question. 
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so 
formulated and the respondent shall, ai 
hearing of the 
appeal, be allowed to argue that the cas 
es not involve 
. ' 
V.RAMASWAMY v. RAMACHANDRAN & ANR. 
523 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.