1. Second appeal — Challenge to concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 781
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T.Thomas : R.P.Sethi
Premabai
Versus
Jnaneshwar Ramakrishna Patange
Case No. : 2696 of 2000
Date of Decision : 4/13/00
The formulation of a substantial question of law is a mandatory prerequisite (sine qua non) for invoking the jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction - Formulation of substantial question of law - Formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of a second appeal - High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court without formulating such a question. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A second appeal was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court, which interfered with the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court. The jurisdiction of the second appeal was invoked without the formulation of any question of law, or any substantial question of law as required under the statute.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction in the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law, which is a mandatory requirement for such proceedings.
Issues: Whether the High Court could legally interfere with concurrent findings in a second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The formulation of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of a second appeal; in the absence of such formulation, the appellate court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Result: Impugned judgment upset and second appeal remanded back to the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- second appeal (Para 2)
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Jurisdiction of second appeal — Requirement of formulating a substantial question of law. (Para 2 )
3. High Court interference with concurrent findings — Absence of formulated substantial question of law under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
4. Formulation of a substantial question of law — Sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction of second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside — Second appeal remanded to High Court for disposal according to law. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. What is the essential requirement for invoking the jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
The formulation of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 2 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) BY the impugned judgment learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kamataka has interfered with the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court and allowed the second appeal. We have noticed that the jurisdiction of the second appeal had been invoked without formulating any question of law, much less any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court has stated time and again that formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for invoking such jurisdiction. (As for example, Kanai Lal Garari v. Murari Ganguly there is a legion of decisions of this Court.) We, tnerefore, upset the impugned judgment and remand the second appeal back to the High Court for disposal of it according to law. If the High Court finds any substantial question of law the decision of ours will not prevent the High Court from formulating the same afresh and dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law.
(3) THE appeals are disposed of accordingly.
