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

2006 Supreme(SC) 1238

ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H.KAPADIA
Shah Mansukhlal Chhaganlal (d) through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Gohil Amarsing Govindbhai (d) through Lrs. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court. Second appeal filed by the respondents in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code) was allowed. Though various questions were raised in support of the appeal, it was primarily highlighted that the Second Appeal was allowed without formulating any substantial question of law.

3. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents when the matter is called though learned counsel had entered appearance.

4. Section 100 of the Code deals with "Second Appeal". The provision reads as follows:

"100 (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law

















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