Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
M/s Nishant Publishing House - Appellant
Versus
Rajender Singh - Respondent
RSA 16 of 2017
Decided On : 19-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar
The main legal point established is that for a question of law to be substantial, it must be of general public importance or directly affect the rights of the parties, and it should not be settled by law or binding precedent.
Headnote:
CPC - Appeal - 100 - Standard of proof in civil cases, M.L.C. proof, adverse inference, substantial question of law - Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134, Sir Chunilal V. Mehta Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh (2008) 12 SCC 796, Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179, Hero Vinoth Vs. Sheshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the First Appeal against the judgment and decree allowing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no substantial question of law arose from the facts of the case and dismissed the appeal. The court also noted the unsatisfactory reasoning of the trial court but found the First Appellate Court's analysis of the evidence to be cogent and reasoned.
Issues: The issues included the standard of proof in civil cases, the admissibility of M.L.C. as proof, adverse inference, and the existence of a substantial question of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a substantial question of law must be of general public importance or directly affect the rights of the parties, and it should not be settled by law or binding precedent. The court also highlighted the principles related to Section 100 CPC and the circumstances under which the High Court may interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the amounts deposited before the Court were ordered to be released in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC impugns the judgment and decree [dated 19th July, 2016 in RCA No.82/2016 (Unique ID No.02402C0245772015) of the Court of Additional District Judge-01, Shahdara District] of dismissal of the First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree [dated 30th April, 2015 in Civil Suit No.335/2011 (Unique ID No. 02402C0291762011) of the Court of Additional Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Civil Judge, Shahdara] allowing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and passing a decree against the appellant/defendant of recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest.
2. This appeal came up first before this Court on 17th January, 2017 when, without indicating the substantial question of law, if any, arising in the appeal and only on finding which notice of the appeal could have been issued, notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued and the trial court record requisitioned. Upon the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff appearing, vide order dated 16th March, 2017, subject to the decretal amount being deposited in this Court, the execution was stayed. Since then, this appeal is being adjourned.
3. Today, none appears for the respondent. Counsel for the appellant states that the counsel for the respondent is out of station. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 26th February, 2018 also, on such unilateral statement of the counsel for the appellant that the counsel for the respondent was unable to appear, adjournment was granted. In this view of the matter, adjournment is refused since it is not even known as yet whether any substantial question of law arises or not.
4. The counsel for the appellant, on enquiry states that the entire decretal amount has been deposited, partly before this Court and partly before the First Appellate Court.
5. The counsel for the appellant/defendant, qua the query regarding substantial question of law, draws attention to Pg.9 of the Memorandum of Appeal proposing the following substantial questions of law as arising in this appeal:
“1. Is the standard of proof to prove a fact in civil cases as strict as in criminal cases?
2. Is it necessary to prove a fact beyond reasonable doubt in civil cases as is required in criminal cases or in civil cases on the bases of preponderance of probability can a fact be proved?
3. In civil cases can the M.L.C. of an injured person be proved by the Medical staff who brought the medical document from the hospital when the injured has not appeared in the witness box?
4. In civil cases, can the factum of a quarrel be proved by the police officials if they bring the Daily diary before the Hon’ble Court to prove the occurrence of quarrel.
5. In civil cases, can the adverse inference be drawn against a person who has advanced a friendly loan to another man but has not shown it in his IT returns or statement of account of that years?
6. In civil cases, can the adverse inference be drawn against a person who has not disclosed the sources from which he arranged the funds to advance a friendly loan to another man?”
6. I am afraid the aforesaid do not qualify as substantial questions of law.
7. Supreme Court, in Veerayee Ammal Vs. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 held that merely because on appreciation of evidence another view is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume jurisdiction on issue of fact framed by the Trial Court by terming the question as substantial question of law. As far back as in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 reiterated in Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh (2008) 12 SCC 796, it was held that the proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in a case is substantial, is whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is an open question in the sense it is not finally settled or is not far from difficulty or calls for di
