Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Jaskaran Singh vs Punjab State,Ministry Of Home & Ors

Supreme Court4 August 2009R. M. Lodha · Tarun Chatterjee

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A High Court exercising jurisdiction in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must frame substantial questions of law before allowing the appeal, and a Second Appeal allowed without such formulation is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh decision in compliance with the mandatory requirement of framing substantial questions of law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5071/2009(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22845 of 2008)

Jaskaran Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Punjab State, Ministry of Home & Ors. ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by way of a Special Leave Petition, is directed

against the Judgment and decree dated 10th of October,

2007 of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in

Regular Second Appeal No. 3661 of 2001, whereby the High

Court had allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the

Judgment of the Appellate Court in a suit for mandatory

injunction.

1

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

examined the impugned Judgment of the High Court as well

as the trial Court and also other materials on record. In our

view, the Judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside

on a very short question and the Second Appeal is to be

sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal in the light of

the observations made herein below :-

On a plain reading of the Judgment of the High Court, we

find that the High Court, without framing the substantial questions

of law, allowed the second appeal and reversed the Judgment of

the Appellate Court, which had set aside the Judgment of the trial

Court dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. It is now well

settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court in

Second Appeal, before allowing the same, ought to have framed

the substantial questions of law arising between the parties and

only thereafter, to decide the appeal on consideration of such

questions of law.

4. In this appeal, admittedly, the second appeal was allowed

without formulating any substantial questions of law as required

mandatorily under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2

5. That being the position, we set aside the Judgment and

decree of the High Court passed in the aforesaid second appeal

and remit the appeal back to the High Court for fresh decision after

formulating the substantial questions of law and thereafter to

decide on merits.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the

High Court in the second appeal is set aside. The Second Appeal

is restored to its original file. The High Court is now requested to

dispose of the same at an early date, preferably within six months

from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it.

7. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There

will be no order as to costs.

..........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ...........................J. August 04, 2009. [R. M. Lodha ]

3

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free