Date of the Judgment: November 29, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 790
Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a High Court dismiss a second appeal without providing any reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important procedural question in a case concerning a property dispute. The Court clarified that High Courts must provide reasons when dismissing a second appeal, even at the initial stage. This judgment emphasizes the importance of transparency and judicial accountability in the appellate process.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by the late Md. Mukim against Hasmat Ali in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela. Md. Mukim sought a declaration that Hasmat Ali was a tenant until March 31, 2003, and also sought his eviction from the property. The trial court partly decreed the suit on July 21, 2015, ordering Hasmat Ali to vacate the property.

Hasmat Ali appealed this decision, but the Appellate Court dismissed his appeal on August 4, 2017. Subsequently, he filed a second appeal before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which was dismissed in limine (at the threshold) on July 31, 2019, without providing any reasons.

Timeline

Date Event
N/A Md. Mukim filed a civil suit against Hasmat Ali in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela
July 21, 2015 Trial court partly decreed the suit, ordering Hasmat Ali to vacate the property.
August 4, 2017 Appellate Court dismissed Hasmat Ali’s appeal.
July 31, 2019 High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissed Hasmat Ali’s second appeal in limine without providing reasons.
November 29, 2021 Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter back to High Court.

Course of Proceedings

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela, partly decreed the suit filed by Md. Mukim, directing Hasmat Ali to vacate the suit property. Hasmat Ali’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appellate Court. He then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine without providing any reasons. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs second appeals to the High Court. The section states:

“100. Second appeal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.”

The Court also referred to Order XLII of the CPC, which outlines the procedure for deciding appeals from appellate decrees. Specifically, Rule 1 of Order XLII states that the rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from appellate decrees.

See also  Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Insurance Claim for Road Damage: Mahavir Road and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd (25 March 2019)

Arguments

Appellant’s (Hasmat Ali) Arguments:

  • The appellant argued that the High Court’s dismissal of the second appeal without assigning any reasons was improper.
  • He contended that the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were flawed.
  • He submitted that the appeal involved substantial questions of law that the High Court should have considered.
  • The appellant argued that the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal at the threshold, without a proper hearing.

Respondent’s (Amina Bibi & Ors.) Arguments:

  • The respondent supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the dismissal was justified.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellant’s Submission: The High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal without reasons.
  • The findings of the lower courts were bad in law.
  • The appeal involved substantial questions of law.
  • The High Court should have entertained the appeal.
  • Dismissal in limine was not justified.
Respondent’s Submission: The High Court’s order was correct.
  • The High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal, filed under Section 100 of the CPC, in limine.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reason
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal in limine? No. The High Court failed to provide reasons for dismissing the appeal, which is a requirement under law.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

  • Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1969 (2) SCC 746]: The Court cited this case to define appellate jurisdiction as a process to correct errors by a higher authority.
  • Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Others [(2018) 4 SCC 562]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that High Courts must provide reasons for dismissing a second appeal, even at the admission stage.
Authority Court How Considered
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1969 (2) SCC 746] Supreme Court of India Cited to define appellate jurisdiction and its purpose.
Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Others [(2018) 4 SCC 562] Supreme Court of India Followed to establish the requirement of providing reasons for dismissing a second appeal.

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
The High Court’s dismissal without reasons was improper. Accepted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court must provide reasons for dismissing a second appeal.
The findings of the lower courts were flawed. Not directly addressed due to the procedural issue. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Authority Court’s View
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat [1969 (2) SCC 746] *Cited* to emphasize that appellate jurisdiction is to correct errors of subordinate courts.
Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Others [(2018) 4 SCC 562] *Followed* to highlight that the High Court is required to assign reasons for dismissing a second appeal in limine.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in the judicial process. The Court emphasized that even when dismissing a second appeal at the initial stage, High Courts must provide reasons to ensure that the affected party understands why their submissions were not accepted. This promotes judicial accountability and maintains the integrity of the appellate process.

See also  Supreme Court Orders Perjury Case for Fabricated Evidence in Tenancy Dispute: New Era Fabrics Ltd. vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri (2020)

Sentiment Percentage
Procedural Fairness 45%
Judicial Accountability 35%
Transparency 20%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal requirements outlined in Section 100 of the CPC and the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the High Court’s failure to provide reasons for dismissing the appeal was a clear violation of these principles.

Issue: Was the High Court justified in dismissing the second appeal in limine?
↓
Did the High Court provide reasons for the dismissal?
↓
No. The High Court dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons.
↓
Supreme Court held: High Court must provide reasons for dismissing a second appeal, even at the initial stage.
↓
Decision: The High Court’s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was not supported by any reasons, stating, “In our view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion.” The Court further noted, “Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted.” The Court also quoted from Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Others, stating, “It is needless to say that for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to assign the reasons in support of its conclusion.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.

Key Takeaways

  • High Courts must provide reasons when dismissing a second appeal, even at the initial stage.
  • Dismissal of a second appeal without reasons is a violation of procedural fairness.
  • The judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and judicial accountability in the appellate process.
  • This decision ensures that affected parties understand why their submissions were not accepted.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasons when dismissing a second appeal, even at the initial stage. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position, as established in Surat Singh (Dead) v. Siri Bhagwan and Others, and clarifies the procedural requirements for dismissing second appeals. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it emphasizes the importance of adherence to the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hasmat Ali vs. Amina Bibi clarifies that High Courts must provide reasons when dismissing second appeals, even at the initial stage. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and judicial accountability in the appellate process. The matter has been sent back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Source: Hasmat Ali vs. Amina Bibi