1. Second appeal — Framing of substantial questions of law — Failure of High Court to address framed questions in the impugned judgment. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1186
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.P.Sethi : S.P.Kurdukar
Baidyanath Bhattacharya
Versus
S.Karmakar
Case No. : 8990 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/11/99
Important Points
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court must address and record findings on the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission rather than merely re-appreciating evidence.
Subject
Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial questions of law - High Court's duty to address framed questions - High Court framed substantial questions of law while admitting a second appeal but failed to advert to them in the judgment, instead proceeding to re-appreciate evidence and remand the matter - Such approach is incorrect and contrary to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure - High Court must consider the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and record findings thereon in accordance with law. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A second appeal was admitted by the High Court, and substantial questions of law were framed. However, the High Court did not address these questions in its judgment, instead re-appreciating the evidence and partly allowing the appeal while remanding the matter to the trial court for disposal.
Findings of Court:
The approach adopted by the High Court is contrary to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is required to consider the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and record its findings on the same.
Issues: Whether the High Court can dispose of a second appeal by re-appreciating evidence without addressing the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission.
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court must specifically consider the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and record findings on them; it cannot simply re-appreciate evidence to dispose of the appeal.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Facts of the case:
A second appeal was admitted by the High Court, and substantial questions of law were framed. However, the High Court did not address these questions in its judgment, instead re-appreciating the evidence and partly allowing the appeal while remanding the matter to the trial court for disposal.
Findings of Court:
The approach adopted by the High Court is contrary to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is required to consider the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and record its findings on the same.
Issues: Whether the High Court can dispose of a second appeal by re-appreciating evidence without addressing the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission.
Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court must specifically consider the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission and record findings on them; it cannot simply re-appreciate evidence to dispose of the appeal.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. High Court's re-appreciation of evidence in a second appeal instead of deciding framed substantial questions of law — Contravention of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
3. High Court erred by not adverting to framed substantial questions of law and instead re-appreciating evidence, which is contrary to Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
4. In a second appeal, the High Court must consider the framed substantial questions of law and record findings thereon in accordance with Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal partly allowed — Impugned High Court order set aside — Matter remitted back to High Court for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 4 )
6. What is the duty of the High Court regarding substantial questions of law framed in a second appeal?
The High Court must consider the framed substantial questions of law and record its findings thereon in accordance with law. (Para 2 )
7. Does re-appreciating evidence in a second appeal satisfy the requirements of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
No, re-appreciating evidence instead of addressing the framed substantial questions of law is an incorrect approach and contrary to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
8. Can the status of a framed question as a substantial question of law be contested after the appeal is remitted?
Yes, parties may contend that the questions framed at the time of admission do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 23/10/1998.
(2) IT is common premise that while admitting the appeal the High Court has framed the substantial questions of law which arise in the said second appeal and those questions of law are found at p. 65 of the compilation. Despite such questions of law having been framed, the High Court has not adverted to them in its impugned judgment. The High Court has proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence and dispose of the second appeal: the High Court has partly allowed the second appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law and as per the directions contained in its judgment. In our opinion the approach of the High Court is not correct and contrary to Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court must consider these two substantial questions of law which were framed at the time of admission of second appeal and must record its findings thereon in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court to consider these two alleged substantial questions of law which were raised at the time of admission of second appeal.
(3) IT is, however, open to the appellants herein to contend that these are not substantial questions of law under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court will accordingly consider the said contention also. It is also made clear that we have not dealt with the merits of the matter and it would be open to the High Court to consider all contentions that would be raised in connection with these two substantial questions of law at the time of hearing.
(4) THE appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
