Point of Law: If question is settled by highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. None appeared for the Respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed in Title Appeal No. 5/2018 by the First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 60/2007 was affirmed.

3. Before deciding the contentions raised by the counsel as aforementioned, it would be necessary to look into the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 of the CPC. It is relevant herein to mention that the instant appeal arises out of a concurrent findings of facts. Section 100 of the CPC permits the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction against an appellate decree only when there arises a substantial question of law. The word ‘substantial’ prefixed to ‘question of law’ does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ‘Substantial question of law’ means not only ‘substantial question of law’ of general importance, but also a substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of Section 100 of the CPC, any question of law, which affects the final decision in a case is a ‘substantial question of law’ as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally having no bearing in the final outcome will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation of a ‘question of law’ it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled, arises for consideration in the case but this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective meaning thereby that where there is a clear enunciation of law and the Lower Court has followed or rigidly applied, such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance. On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law, but the Lower Court had ignored or misinterpreted or misapplied the same, and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by the Supreme Court or this Court would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a ‘substantial question of law’ as between the parties. Even where there is an enunciation of law by the Supreme Court or this Court and the same has been followed by the Lower Court and if the appellant is able to persuade this Court i.e. that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two different viewpoints, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. In that view of the matter, there cannot, therefore be a straight jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case. It shall depend on the facts of each case along with the decision rendered by the Courts below.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs. (2001) 3 SCC 179 discussed what would be a substantial question of law in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which are quoted herein-below:

“12. The phrase substantial question of law, as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying question of law, means - of having substance, essential, real of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature