SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 61

2000(4) Supreme 444
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Majmudar & D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Manorama Thampuratti -Appellant
versus
C.K. Sujatha Thampuratti & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14687 of 1999)
Decided on 10-1-2000

The High Court must strictly adhere to the limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure when deciding a second appeal, which includes the mandatory requirement of framing substantial questions of law before deciding or remanding the proceedings.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Second appeal-High Court remanding appeal without framing substantial question of law-Procedure laid down under Section 100 not strictly followed-Impugned judgment set aside-Appeal restored to High Court for fresh disposal.

       

Act Referred

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • civil procedure
      • second appeal
        • section 100 code of civil procedure (Para 3)

Table of Contents

1. Challenge to High Court order in second appeal regarding compliance with the limited jurisdiction and procedure under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )

2. Appellant contended that the High Court failed to frame substantial questions of law and ignored its limited jurisdiction under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )

3. The High Court allowed the second appeal and remanded proceedings without strictly following the procedure and limited jurisdiction prescribed under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )

4. High Courts must strictly adhere to the procedure and limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, including framing substantial questions of law. (Para 3 )

5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; second appeal restored for re-decision in accordance with the limited jurisdiction under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )

6. What are the jurisdictional requirements for a High Court when deciding a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

The High Court must operate within the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and strictly follow the procedure laid down therein, which includes the requirement to frame substantial questions of law for decision. (Para 3 )

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally with their consent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court while deciding the second appeal has not kept in view the limited jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor has it framed substantial questions of law for its decision. Learned counsel for the respondents could not effectively combat this contention. A mere look at the impugned order shows that the High Court has allowed the second appeal and remanded the proceedings without strictly following the procedure laid down under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. Second Appeal No. 7 of 1998-A is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to redecide the same in accordance with the limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure after following the procedure laid down therein. No costs.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

*************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top