1987 Supreme(MP) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
Sudhanshu Bhushan Tyagi - Appellant
Vs.
Saifia College, Bhopal - Respondent
S.A. No. 184 of 1982 (J)
Decided On : 05-08-1987

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.100 – second appeal – point though raised in memo of first appeal not argued – does not give rise to substantial question of law.

        Short Note

       This Court while admitting the appeal for final hearing on 8 – 7 – 1982 framed the following substantial question of law : –

       “Whether the service of the appellant could be terminated by the respondents without the sanction of executive Council of Bhopal University?”

       In view of the aforesaid, the said question of law is the only question requiring decision of the appeal.

       2. Held: A perusal of the plaint does not indicate any such objection taken therein. The original plaint did not contain reference to statutes of Bhopal University. However, by amendment effected on 31 – 12 – 1975 it was added that the services of the plaintiff were governed by the statutes of Bhopal University and therefore his services could not be terminated without specific cause or without sanction of the Executive Council of the Bhopal University. Inspite of the amendment, there was no specific issue framed on this point. The learned trial Judge held that it was not specified as to how the statutes were violated. The point does not appear to have been raised before the lower appellate Court and therefore there is no discussion in the impugned judgment about it. Learned counsel for the appellant was repeatedly asked whether this question was raised before the lower appellate Court? He gave a very evasive reply that it was contained in the memo of appeal. Even if it be so, every thing contained in the memo of appeal is not required to be decided unless the counsel insists on the same. A perusal of the grounds stated in the memo of appeal does not lead this Court to hold that the substantial question of law as canvassed in this Court was raised before the lower appellate Court. A point which is not taken before lower appellate Court cannot give rise to a Substantial question of law. Under the circumstances, the question of law, as framed by this Court must be treated as not arising in this appeal and therefore it is not necessary to decide the same. Appeal dismissed.