Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 168
2000(4) Supreme 651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., V.N. Khare, J.
Shankareppa M. Mutanki -Appellant
versus
B.M. Muktanki -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7821 of 1999)
Decided on 21-1-2000
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Second appeal-High Court upsetting finding of Appellate Court and modifying decree without framing question of law-Requirement of Section 100 overlooked-Judgment and decree of High Court set aside-Case remanded for fresh disposal. (Para 2)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. 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. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors.1 and Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.2 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.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Shankareppa M. Mutanki v. B.M. Muktanki, 2000(4) Supreme 651 : 2000 (4) JT 238 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 470 : 2000 (3) Cur. C.C. 14
00021
00022
