Reasoning
Decision
Shankareppa N. Mutanki
v.
B. M. Mutanki
(Supreme Court Of India)
C.A. No. 478/2000 | 21-01-2000
Dr. A. S. ANAND, C.J. and V. N. KHARE, J.
Leave granted.
We find that the learned single Judge upset the finding of the appellate Court and modified the decree of the Trial Court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the requirement of Section 100, C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait and Others, 1997 SC 1531 [LQ/SC/1996/1646] and Panchugopal Barua and Others v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Others, 1997 SC 978 [LQ/SC/1997/77] , that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with it unless the question involved is a substantial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the mandate of Section 100, C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.
Leave granted.
We find that the learned single Judge upset the finding of the appellate Court and modified the decree of the Trial Court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the requirement of Section 100, C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait and Others, 1997 SC 1531 [LQ/SC/1996/1646] and Panchugopal Barua and Others v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Others, 1997 SC 978 [LQ/SC/1997/77] , that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with it unless the question involved is a substantial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the mandate of Section 100, C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. A. S. ANAND (CJI)
HON'BLE JUSTICE V. N. KHARE
Eq Citation
2002 (1) ARC 69
(2000) 9 SCC 254
JT 2000 (4) SC 238
LQ/SC/2000/148
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — Jurisdiction to deal with — Requirement of framing substantial question of law — Held, while hearing a second appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with it unless the question involved is a substantial question of law and the same is formulated — Constitution of India, Art. 136
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
