1. Appeal against High Court judgment in a second appeal involving interference with findings of fact under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 943
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.P.Sethi : S.P.Kurdukar
H.G.Venkataramanaiah
Versus
Subba Pujari
Case No. : 4879 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/30/99
Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, an appellate court cannot interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal unless it frames a substantial question of law. Failure to do so renders the judgment unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction of the appellate court - Interference with findings of fact - Requirement to frame substantial question of law - The appellate court cannot interfere with findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC without framing a substantial question of law as required by the statute - A judgment passed without the formulation of such a question is unsustainable. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a judgment and decree in a second appeal where the appellate court had interfered with the findings of fact recorded by the lower court.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court interfered with findings of fact and failed to frame any substantial question of law as mandated under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with findings of fact without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the appellate court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited to substantial questions of law; therefore, interfering with findings of fact without formulating such a question is legally impermissible.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- second appeal (Para 3)
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. High Court erred by interfering with findings of fact and failing to frame a substantial question of law as mandated under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3 )
3. High Court jurisdiction under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code requires the formulation of a substantial question of law and prohibits interference with findings of fact. (Para 3 )
4. Appeal allowed — impugned judgment set aside — matter remitted to High Court to formulate substantial questions of law and dispose of the case. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code?
No, the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact when exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3 )
6. Is the High Court required to frame a substantial question of law in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Yes, the High Court is required to formulate substantial question(s) of law arising from the records of the case as a condition for exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 3 )
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.
