Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 2008
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Hameedunnisa - Appellants
Versus
Chand Bee & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 130-131 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3647-3648/2000).
Decided on : 05-01-2001
The High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact without framing a question of law and appraising the evidence afresh.
Headnote:
Interference - Evidence - The court held that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court without framing a question of law and appraising the evidence afresh. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and orders under appeal were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Andhra Pradesh, which was a common order passed on two second appeals and two civil revision petitions. The High Court went into the evidence and, on a reappraisal thereof, set aside the judgment and orders of the First Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the findings of fact without framing a question of law and appraising the evidence afresh. The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and orders under appeal were set aside. The matters were restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, keeping in view the constraints imposed upon the High Court by law.
Issues: The issues involved the interference by the High Court with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court without framing a question of law and appraising the evidence afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court was wrong in interfering with the findings of fact without framing a question of law and appraising the evidence afresh. The court emphasized that the High Court should have framed a question of law if any arose and could not have gone into the evidence and appraised it afresh.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and orders under appeal were set aside. The matters were restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, keeping in view the constraints imposed upon the High Court by law. Pending the disposal of the appeals, the status quo as to possession shall be maintained, and no demolition shall take place. No order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Andhra Pradesh. It was a common order passed on two second appeals and two civil revision petitions. No question of law was framed. Despite the submission on behalf of counsel for the present appellant before the High Court that the High Court could not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, the High Court went into the evidence and, on a reappraisal thereof, set aside the judgment and orders of the First Appellate Authority. The High Court was wrong. In the first place, it should have framed a question of law, if any arose. In the second place, it could not have gone into the evidence and appraised it afresh. The appeals must, therefore, be allowed and the judgment and orders under appeal set aside. The Second Appeals (Nos.570 and 571 of 1992) and Civil Revision Petitions (Nos.692 and 706 of 1994) are restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, keeping in view the constraints imposed upon the High Court by law. This shall be done expeditiously. Pending the disposal of the appeals, the status quo as to possession shall be maintained and no demolition shall take place. Order on the appeals accordingly.
3. No order as to costs.
