1. Suit for recovery — Second appeal before High Court — Application of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
Madhavan Nair
Versus
Ramankutty
Case No. : 6186 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/29/99
Important Points
State amendments to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure inconsistent with the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, are repealed under Section 97(1). For appeals filed after 1-2-1977, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law to exercise jurisdiction in second appeals.
Subject
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 97(1) and 97(2)(m) - Second appeal - Framing of substantial question of law - State amendment to Section 100 - Effect of Amendment Act, 1976 - Any amendment made by a State Legislature before the commencement of the amending Act shall, unless consistent with the principal Act as amended, stand repealed - For appeals filed after 1-2-1977, the amended provisions of Section 100 are applicable - High Court is required to frame a substantial question of law before deciding the appeal. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery was decreed by the trial court, subsequently reversed by the lower appellate court, and then decreed by the High Court in a second appeal. The High Court relied on a State amendment to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the case on facts because the lower appellate court had reversed the trial court's decision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in applying the State amendment. Under Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, inconsistent State amendments were repealed. As the appeal was filed after 1-2-1977, the amended Section 100 applied, necessitating the framing of a substantial question of law.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide a second appeal based on a State amendment to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure without framing a substantial question of law, in light of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: State amendments to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure that are inconsistent with the principal Act as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, stand repealed by virtue of Section 97(1). Consequently, for appeals filed after the commencement of the amending Act, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law as required by the amended Section 100.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and the case remanded to the High Court to decide the second appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Facts of the case:
A suit for recovery was decreed by the trial court, subsequently reversed by the lower appellate court, and then decreed by the High Court in a second appeal. The High Court relied on a State amendment to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the case on facts because the lower appellate court had reversed the trial court's decision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in applying the State amendment. Under Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, inconsistent State amendments were repealed. As the appeal was filed after 1-2-1977, the amended Section 100 applied, necessitating the framing of a substantial question of law.
Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to decide a second appeal based on a State amendment to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure without framing a substantial question of law, in light of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.
Ratio Decidendi: State amendments to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure that are inconsistent with the principal Act as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, stand repealed by virtue of Section 97(1). Consequently, for appeals filed after the commencement of the amending Act, the High Court must frame a substantial question of law as required by the amended Section 100.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of the High Court set aside and the case remanded to the High Court to decide the second appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court must frame a substantial question of law under Section 100, CPC, or can rely on a State amendment regarding findings of fact. (Para 3 )
3. Section 97(1) of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 repeals inconsistent State amendments; the Kerala amendment to Section 100 is inapplicable to appeals filed after the amending Act. (Para 4 )
4. State amendments to Section 100, CPC, inconsistent with the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, stand repealed for appeals filed after the commencement of the amending Act. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Case remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. (Para 5 )
6. Does a State amendment to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure survive the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976?
Section 97(1) of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 provides that any amendment made by a State Legislature before the commencement of the amending Act stands repealed, unless it is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended. (Para 4 )
7. When does the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to appeals?
The amended provisions of Section 100 apply to appeals filed after the commencement of the amending Act, as Section 97(2)(m) specifies that the amended Section 100 does not affect appeals admitted before the amendment. (Para 4 )
8. Is the High Court required to frame a substantial question of law in a second appeal under the amended Section 100, CPC?
Yes, the High Court must apply the provisions of the amended Section 100, frame a substantial question of law if one arises, and then decide the appeal. (Para 4 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE trial court had decreed the suit for recovery which had been filed by the respondent. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the said decision whereupon a second appeal was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(3) IT is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Paikeday for the appellant that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law which was not done in the instant case. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri K. Sukumaran for the respondent that there was a State amendment made in Section 100 in Kerala wherein a new clause (d) was inserted to the effect that the finding of the lower appellate court on any question of fact material to right decision of the case on the merits being in conflict with the finding of the court of first instance on such question would be maintainable. He, therefore, submits that as the judgment of the lower appellate court was that of reversal, the High Court had the jurisdiction to go into the facts and come to an appropriate conclusion thereon.
(4) WE are unable to agree with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 provides that any amendment which is made or provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of the amending Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. In clause (m) of sub-section (2) of Section 97 of the said Act, it is specifically provided that the provisions of the amended Section 100 shall not apply to or affect any appeal which stood admitted before the amendment in Section 100. In the present case, the appeal was admittedly filed after 1-2-1977 and this being so, it is the amended provisions of Section 100 which were applicable, the Kerala State amendment in Section 100 having come to an end by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the amending Act. The High Court, therefore, ought to have applied the provisions of the amended Section 100, framed a substantial question of law if it arose and then decided the appeal.
(5) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court set aside and the case remanded to the High Court to decide SA No. 1083 of 1989 afresh in accordance with law.
(6) NO order as to costs.
