DHARAM SINGH v. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 366

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.M. PANCHAL

Case summary

DHARAM SINGH v. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 14 S. C. R. 366 t ' . ,.... DHARAM SINGH v. . KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 2008) . - ' OCTOBER 13, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J:M. PANCHAL, JJ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: . · s: 100(5), proviso - Second appeal - Allowed by High Court without formulating any substantial question of law - HELD: Proviso to sub-section (5) to s. 100 is applicable only when any substantial question of law has already been formu- /a_ted and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of · law... :.... The impugned judgment does not show that any substantial question of law has been formulated and the second } appeal was heard on such question - The judgment of High Y' Court setaside and the matter remitted to it for decision afresh ' 1-- '' in ac_corda17ce with law. .

, ~The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for a declaration that he·had·become owner of the suit property by way of extinguishmentof equity of redemption qua the rights of the defendants; and further for consequential relief of restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property in favour of any body. The trial Court decreed the suit and the ·first appellate Court upheld the decree. However, in the second appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts · below' and dismissed the suit. In the instant appeal filed by the defendant, it was contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal without formulating any question of law as required u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Proce- ~i dure, 1908. The judgment of the High Court was defended on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff on the ground proviso to sub-section (5) of s. 100 of the Code. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.

1 The judgment passed by the 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. That being so, the judgment cannot be maintained. [para 7] [370-G] /shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 =2000 (1) SCC 434; Roop Singh v. Ram Singh 2000 (2) SCR 605 = 2000 (3) SCC 708; Kanhaiya/al v. Anupkumar 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 = 2003 (1) SCC 430; Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors. 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 298 = 2004 (6) SCC 359; Joseph Severane and Others v. Benny Mathew and Others 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 429 = 2005 (7) SCC 667; Sasikumar and Others v. Kunnath Chel/appan Nair and 0thers 2005 (12) SCC 588; and Gian Dass v. Gram Panchayat, Village Sunnder Kalan and Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 781 = 2006 (6) sec 271 - relied on. 1. 2 The proviso to sub-s. (5) of s. 100 CPC is applicable only when any substantial question of .

law has already been formulated and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any " l' other substantial question of law. The expression "on any \ other substantial question of law" clearly shows that there must be some substantial question of law already formulated and then only another substantial question of law which was not formulated earlier can be taken up by the High Court for reasons to be recorded, if it is of the view that the case involves such question. [para 13] [372 A-C] ......... ~. 1. 3 The impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court so far as it relates to Second Appeal No. 285 of 2000 for disposal in accordance with law. (para 14] [372 - D] '1~- CASE LAW REFERENCE 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 24 relied on para 8 2000 (2) SCR 605 relied on para 9 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 366 relied on para 10 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 298 relied on para 11 ~ 2005 (3) Suppl.

SCR 429 ·relied on para 12 2005 (12) sec 588 relied on para 12 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 781 relied on para 12 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6087 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 25. 7. 2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RS. A. No. 285 of 2000 '/ ' Kuldip Singh, R. K. Pandey, T. P. Mishra and H. S. Sandhu for the Appellant. Arvinder Singh and Jitendra Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned een formulated or that the second appeal was heard on the question, if any, so formulated. That being so, the judgment cannqt be maintained. 8. ln lshwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [2000 (1) SCC 434] this Court in para 10 has stated thus: "10.

Now under Section 100 CPC, after the 1976 -'-t amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate court without doing so. " 9. Yet again in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh [2000 (3) SCC 708] this Court has expressed that the jurisdiction of a High --t. Court is confined to appeals involving substantjal question of law. Para 7 of the said judgment reads: "?. It is to be reiterated that under Section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. " 10. The position has been reiterated in Kanhaiyalal v. Anupkumar [2003 (1) SCC 430]. "' 11. In Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors. [2004 (6) sec 359], it ~as observed thus: "6.

In view of Section 100 of the Code the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state substantial question or questions involved in the appeal as required under Subsection (3) of Section 100. Where the High Court is satisfied that in any case any substantial question of law "'is involved, it shall formulate that question under Sub- ~ section (4) and the second appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated as stated in Sub-section (5) of Section 100. " 12. The position was highlighted by this Court in Joseph Severane and Others v. Benny Mathew and Others [2005 (7) SCC 667], Sasikumar and Others v. Kunnath Chel/appan Nair and Others [2005 (12) SCC 588] and in Gian Dass v. Gram Panchayat, Village Sunnder Kalan and Ors. [2006 (6) SCC 271]. 13. The plea about proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 instead of supporting the stand of the respondent rather goes against them.

The proviso is applicable only when any substantial question of law has already been formulated and it empowers the High Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, s · the appeal on any other substantial question of law. The expression "on any other substantial question of law" clearly shows that there must be some substantial question of law already formulated and then only another substantial question of law which was not formulated earlier can be taken up by the High Court for reasons to be recorded, if it is of the view that the cas. e involves such question. 14. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside, we remit. the matter to the High Court so far as it relat~s to Second Appeal No. 285 of 2000 for disposal in accorqance with law. The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. y' R. P. Appeal disposed of.