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

1999 Supreme(SC) 1280

R.P.SETHI, S.P.KURDUKAR
Kishan Ghar – Appellant
Versus
Castrol India LTD. – Respondent


S.P.KURDUKAR, J.

(1) LEAVE granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is at the behest of the plaintiff. On 29-4-1995, an ex parte decree was passed. The said decree came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court. The High Court however interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below and allowed the second appeal filed by the defendant and remitted the matter back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law.

(2) ON a perusal of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has not complied with the requirement of Section 100, in particular, sub-section (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Without formulating a substantial question of law, the High Court has proceeded to consider the evidence and other material on record and accordingly allowed the second appeal. In our opinion, the course adopted by the High Court while allowing the second appeal is totally unsustainable in view of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court. We hope that the High Court will now follow the m

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top