1. Second appeal before the High Court involving the failure to formulate a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1330
2001(2) Supreme 404
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & R. P. Sethi, JJ.
Chandragouda & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Shekharagouda S. Pittanagoudar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4522 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13995 of 1999)
Decided on 11-8-2000
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Formulation of a substantial question of law is sine-qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by High Court.
Formulation of a substantial question of law is sine-qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by High Court.
Subject
Civil Law - Second Appeal
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 100-Second appeal decided by High Court without formulating any question of law-Impugned Judgment was liable to be set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Submission that the High Court's reliance on documents produced under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure justified the judgment. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court failed to address the jurisdictional requirement of formulating a substantial question of law, which is mandatory regardless of evidence produced under Order 41, Rule 27. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Formulation of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100, CPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law; status quo to be maintained. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Is the formulation of a substantial question of law mandatory for a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Yes, the formulation of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Does the admission of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC bypass the need to formulate a substantial question of law?
No, the production of documents under Order 41, Rule 27 is irrelevant to the jurisdictional requirement of formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The impugned judgment was passed in a second appeal by the High Court without formulating any question of law. When Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins that formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction thereunder, the High Court should have first addressed itself on that aspect.
3. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Counsel submits that, as the respondents have produced documents in the High Court with permission under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court acted on them also. That is beside the point, for, the formulation of a substantial question of law should have been made in the section appeal, if there was any such question of law. If there is none, then it goes to the root of jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. Without prejudice to the right of the respondents in raising such a question, if there is any, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for disposal of the said appeal afresh in accordance with law. Parties will maintain status qua in the meanwhile.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of. Matter remanded.
***************
