1. Appeal concerning the High Court's reversal of a trial court decree based on settlement orders found illegal and without jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1818
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Ramdeo Choudhary (d) Thr. Lr - Appellant
Versus
Jai Kishun Choudhary (d) By Lrs. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 880 of 2009
Decided On : 07-02-2019
Important Points
Failure to frame additional substantial questions of law and to consider previously framed substantial question of law led to the remittal of the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Subject
Civil Law - Appellate Procedure
Headnote
Substantial Question of Law - Court's Failure to Frame Additional Questions - Remittal of Case to High Court
Fact of the Case:
The High Court decided the issue of the maintainability of the suit without prayer for recovery of possession without considering the substantial question of law framed by the trial court. The parties did not bring to the notice of the High Court what the substantial question of law was.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court failed to frame additional substantial questions of law and did not consider the previously framed substantial question of law. As a result, the case was remitted to the High Court for framing additional questions and rendering a decision afresh after hearing the parties. The Court made it clear that it had not commented on the merits of the case and kept all contentions open. The appeal was allowed and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Issues: Failure of High Court to frame additional substantial questions of law, failure to consider previously framed substantial question of law, remittal of case to High Court
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's failure to frame additional substantial questions of law and to consider the previously framed substantial question of law led to the remittal of the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the High Court for framing additional questions and rendering a decision afresh after hearing the parties. The Court made it clear that it had not commented on the merits of the case and kept all contentions open. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Sunil Kumar, Adv., Rohini Prasad, Adv., Akshat Chaitanya, Adv., Ashish Kumar, Adv., Sarla Chandra, Adv., Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv., Rakesh Mishra, Adv., Mohua Sinha, Adv., Jagriti Bharti, Adv., Shekhar Kumar, Adv.
Sunil Kumar, Adv., Rohini Prasad, Adv., Akshat Chaitanya, Adv., Ashish Kumar, Adv., Sarla Chandra, Adv., Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv., Rakesh Mishra, Adv., Mohua Sinha, Adv., Jagriti Bharti, Adv., Shekhar Kumar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the High Court's decision on the maintainability of a suit without framing the necessary substantial questions of law. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court decided the case on the maintainability of the suit without framing a substantial question of law on that specific issue. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. An appellate court cannot decide a case on a legal issue that has not been framed as a substantial question of law. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; case remitted to the High Court to frame additional questions of law and decide the matter afresh. (Para 4 , 6 )
6. What is the effect of an appellate court deciding a case on an issue not framed as a substantial question of law?
When a court decides a case on an issue without framing a corresponding substantial question of law and fails to address the framed question, the case may be remitted to frame additional questions and decide afresh. (Para 4 )
7. Does remitting a case for the framing of additional questions of law imply a decision on the merits?
No, remitting a case for the purpose of framing and deciding substantial questions of law does not constitute a comment on the merits of the case, and all contentions remain open. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
2. The High Court has framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the learned court of appeal below erred in law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the basis of the fact finding that the orders of settlements were not controverted. Although the said orders were found to be illegal and without jurisdiction by the trial Court."
3. While deciding the appeal, it appears that none of the parties had brought to the notice of the High Court that what was the substantial question of law that was framed. The High Court has decided the issue in para 8 of the maintainability of the suit without prayer for recovery of possession. It was rightly conceded by learned counsel for the parties that the High Court ought to have framed additional substantial question(s) of law on the aforesaid aspect but that was not so done.
4. As High Court has not framed the question(s) of law on the issue on which it has decided the case and the substantial question of law framed has not been adverted to, we remit the case to the High Court to frame additional question(s) of law as well as to decide previously framed substantial question of law if it arises for consideration and to render decision afresh after hearing the parties.
5. We make it clear we have not commented on the merits of the case. All the contentions are kept open.
6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms and, in the circumstance, parties to bear their own costs.
7. Registry is directed to sent the original record back to the concerned Court.
