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

2019 Supreme(SC) 369

DINESH MAHESHWARI, A.M.SAPRE
Chand Kaur – Appellant
Versus
MEHAR KAUR (D) THROUGH LRS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Pal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. S. Janani, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 2066, 2067, 2068, 2292 and 2294 of 1987.

3. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail for the disposal of these appeals for the reason that having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeals, out of which these appeals arise, for their fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.

4. The need to remand these cases to the High Court is called for because we find that the High Court though disposed of bunch of second appeals (RSA Nos. 2066 to 2068 of 1987 and RSA 2292 to 2294 of 1987) but it did so without framing any substantial question(s) of law as is required to be framed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").

5. In our opinion, framing of substantial question(s) of law in the present appeals was mandatory because the High Court allowed the second appeals and interfered in the judgment








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