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

1999 Supreme(SC) 943

R.P.SETHI, S.P.KURDUKAR
H. G. Venkataramanaiah – Appellant
Versus
Subba Pujari – Respondent


S.P.KURDUKAR, J.

(1) DELAY condoned.

(2) LEAVE granted.

(3) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-1997 in RSA No. 804 of 1989. The High Court has interfered with the findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The High Court has also not framed any substantial question of law as required to be done under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment is unsustainable. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the High Court. We hope the High Court will formulate substantial question(s) of law in terms of Section 100 CPC, if any, arises on the records of the case and will dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(4) THE appeal is allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.

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