2023 Supreme(SC) 984

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R GAVAI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke – Appellant
Versus
Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6070 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.20183 of 2022]
Decided on : 21-09-2023

IMPORTANT POINT
Second appeal – Existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction – Jurisdiction under second appeal not to be exercised merely because an alternate view is possible – Non-formulation of substantial question(s) of law renders proceedings patently illegal.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction – Substantial questions of law, as framed by High Court must be answered in light of contentions raised therein – If Court is of the view that a question framed is to be altered, deleted or a new question is to be added, then Court must hear the parties – When case is admitted, but upon hearing when it is found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, reasons should be recorded in such dismissal – Substantial questions should ordinarily, not be framed at a later stage – If done so, then parties must be given an opportunity to meet them – Non-formulation of substantial question(s) of law renders proceedings patently illegal – Jurisdiction under second appeal not to be exercised merely because an alternate view is possible – Interference on findings of fact permitted in exceptional cases, i.e., when finding is based on either inadmissible or, no evidence.. (Paras 13.1, 13.4, 14, 14.1, 14.3, 16, 16.5, and 17)

(B) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Defendants allegedly tried to evade coming to office of authority to execute sale-deed – Impugned judgment overturns concurrent findings of fact in respect of readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff to perform the contract, without pointing out exceptional circumstance or perversity in findings which were returned by Courts below – Haste with which Court proceeded to dispose of appeal without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated – Governing statute lays considerable emphasis on hearing parties on all questions and same is reflected in various pronouncements of this Court – Approach adopted by a Court in disposing of such appeals must abide by the same – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 24, 26 and 28)

Facts of the case:

Following questions arise for consideration of this Court: (1) Whether in absence of affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing framed substantial questions of law, High Court could have proceeded to decide the same in an appeal preferred under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, particularly, when findings of fact rendered by two Courts, were sought to be reversed?

(2) Whether in absence of any trial record or without summoning and perusing the trial record, findings of fact on the issue of plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed, could have been reversed by High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC?

Findings of Court:

Judgment and Order dated 30th September 2022 passed in Second Appeal No.324/2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) is set aside and case is restored to the file of the High Court. Accordingly, appeal is accepted and allowed in such terms.

Result : Appeal allowed.