Jaskaran Singh vs Punjab State,Ministry Of Home & Ors
- SCC(2009) 9 SCC 59
- AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 1417
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
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