Back
2004 Supreme(SC) 1699
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHAN, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Vasant N. Karkhanis (Dead) By Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
Prabhavati B. Hajarnis (Dead) By Lrs. and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 1999
Decided on : 13-07-2004
High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code is contingent upon the framing of substantial questions of law.
Headnote:
Substantial Question of Law - High Court's Jurisdiction - The court held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code only on the basis of substantial questions of law framed and the second appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered by the High Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code without following the aforesaid procedure is not sustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
The learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below without framing a substantial question of law arising in the appeal as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The appeal is accepted as the High Court assumed jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code without framing a substantial question of law. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
Issues: High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code without framing a substantial question of law
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code only on the basis of substantial questions of law framed and the second appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed and the interim order dated 14-2-2000 stands vacated.
ORDER :
Ashok Bhan and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
By the impugned order dated 5-4-1999/6-4-1999 the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (sic High Court of Bombay at Bombay), hearing the second appeal has reversed the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below without framing a substantial question of law arising in the appeal as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Procedure Code ).
2. This Court in a catena of decisions including in M.S.V. Raja v. Seeni Thevar, (2001) 6 SCC 652, has held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code only on the basis of substantial questions of law framed and the second appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered by the High Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code without following the aforesaid procedure is not sustainable in law.
3. As indicated above, in the present case, the High Court has assumed jurisdiction under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code without framing a substantial question of law. On this short ground, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The High Court will proceed with the matter only after framing substantial question of law, if it arises in the appeal.
4. The Registry is directed to remit the record of this case to the High Court forthwith. Since the regular second appeals pertain to the year 1991, we would request the High Court to take up the matter and dispose it of as soon as possible in accordance with law.
This appeal accordingly stands allowed. The interim order dated 14-2-2000 stands vacated.
Appeal allowed.
