Order of Reference.1

Subba Rao, J.-Before we dispose of the application finally we think it is necessary to get an authoritative decision by a Full Bench on the meaning of the words “substantial question of law” occurring in Article 133 of the Constitution of India. In Mahadeva Royal v. Chikka Royal2, Pandrang Row and Abdul Rahman, JJ., held chat a question is a substantial question of law if the question of law affects the rights of the parties substantially. At page 310 the learned Judges say:

“Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, the learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the contention in regard to their admissibility is flimsy and without any force and cannot be said to raise a substantial question of law. We were of opinion that there was no substance in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate-General; but if the words ‘substantial questions’ are to be understood in their being of substance to the parties, we must hold that the decision in regard to the non-admissibility of the documents is a substantial question which would entitle the petitioner to have a certificate.”

With great respect to the learned Judges we cannot agree. If the judgment is correct, it will lead to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document