Supreme Court clarifies procedure for Second Appeals under Section 100 of CPC: Vijay Arjun Bhagat vs. Nana Laxman Tapkire (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 405

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a High Court introduce new substantial questions of law in a second appeal, after having already framed specific questions at the time of admission? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical procedural question in a civil appeal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This case highlights the importance of adhering to established legal procedures in appellate matters.

The core issue revolves around whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, correctly decided a second appeal by introducing new substantial questions of law not framed at the time of admission. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which led to the case being remanded for a fresh hearing. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit (R.C.S. No. 600/1982) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, against the respondents (defendants). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the suit properties were their ancestral properties, that they were the owners, and that a specific property was not a trust property but their private property. The defendants contested these claims, raising objections about the maintainability of the suit and denying the plaintiffs’ ownership on merits.

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit on December 10, 1999. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a First Appeal (R.C.A. No. 21/2000) in the Court of District Judge, Ahmednagar. The first Appellate Court allowed the appeal on January 16, 2002, setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment and decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit.

Subsequently, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) filed a Second Appeal (No. 274/2002) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The High Court admitted the second appeal on November 30, 2002, framing six substantial questions of law. However, in its final judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal based on two additional questions of law that were not framed at the time of admission.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, admitted the second appeal on 30.11.2002, framing six substantial questions of law:

• (A) Whether the first appellate court misread the partition deed (Exh.81), making the finding perverse?
• (B) Whether the first appellate Court failed to consider the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of C.P.C.?
• (C) Whether the first appellate Court erroneously relied upon Xerox copies of an unregistered mortgage deed?
• (D) Whether the first appellate Court erroneously concluded that the suit properties were the private properties of the original plaintiffs?
• (E) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the nature of the property, an issue that should be dealt with by the Charity Commissioner?
• (F) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

However, the High Court, in its final judgment, allowed the appeal based on two additional substantial questions of law, which were not framed at the time of admission. This procedural irregularity formed the basis for the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation and application of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This section governs the procedure for second appeals in the High Court.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:
Provided that nothing in this sub­section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

This section mandates that a second appeal can only be entertained if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. The appellant must precisely state the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal. The High Court, if satisfied, must formulate that question. The appeal is then heard only on the question so formulated. The respondent has the right to argue that the case does not involve such a question. The proviso allows the High Court to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not initially formulated, if it is satisfied that such a question exists and by recording reasons.

Arguments

The source document does not provide specific arguments made by the parties. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court framed two additional substantial questions of law in the judgment itself, which is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The High Court framed the following additional questions:

• (i) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of whether a particular property is that of a Public Trust or belongs to an individual claimant?
• (ii) Whether the suit for declaration that the properties were not of the Public Trust was barred by limitation?

The Supreme Court noted that these questions were not framed at the time of admission of the second appeal, nor at the time of hearing, which is a violation of the procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Innovativeness of the argument: The innovativeness of the argument lies in the procedural aspect of the case. The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused entirely on the procedural impropriety committed by the High Court in framing additional questions of law in the judgment itself, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense. Instead, the court focused on the procedural error committed by the High Court in deciding the second appeal. The core issue was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal by framing two additional substantial questions of law in the judgment itself, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court analyzed the actions of the High Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 100, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission or any additional question framed at the time of hearing after recording reasons.
• Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. (C.A. Nos. 9118-9119 of 2010, Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to reinforce the interpretation of Section 100, particularly regarding the procedure for framing additional substantial questions of law. The Supreme Court in this case held that any additional question of law must be framed at the time of hearing and by recording reasons.

The following table summarizes how the authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The Supreme Court also analyzed how each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure prescribed under this section. The High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission or any additional question framed at the time of hearing after recording reasons.
• Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. [CITATION]: This authority was followed to understand the correct procedure for framing additional substantial questions of law in a second appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that any additional question of law must be framed at the time of hearing and by recording reasons.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a procedural error by framing two additional questions of law in the judgment itself, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, in accordance with law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is not unlimited and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. The Court noted that the High Court’s failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure caused prejudice to the rights of the parties, particularly the appellants, who were deprived of the opportunity to address the additional questions of law.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law in this case is:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on the legal interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather than the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission or any additional question framed at the time of hearing after recording reasons.
• ✓ Any additional substantial question of law must be framed at the time of hearing the appeal and by recording reasons for doing so.
• ✓ Failure to adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can lead to the setting aside of the High Court’s judgment.
• ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in appellate matters.

This judgment has significant implications for the procedure followed by High Courts when dealing with second appeals. It clarifies that the High Court cannot introduce new substantial questions of law in the final judgment without following the prescribed procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, as the matter was quite old.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when deciding second appeals. The High Court cannot introduce new substantial questions of law in the judgment itself without following the mandatory procedure of framing the question at the time of hearing and recording reasons. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the procedure for second appeals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by framing two additional substantial questions of law in the judgment itself. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in appellate matters and the need for High Courts to adhere to the prescribed legal framework when deciding second appeals.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Child Category: Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

FAQ

Q: What is a second appeal in the Indian legal system?

A: A second appeal is an appeal filed in the High Court against a decree passed in a first appeal by a lower court. It is governed by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Q: What are substantial questions of law in a second appeal?

A: Substantial questions of law are significant legal issues that need to be addressed in an appeal. The High Court must be satisfied that such questions exist before admitting a second appeal.

Q: What is the role of the High Court in a second appeal?

A: The High Court’s role is to examine whether the lower appellate court has correctly applied the law. The High Court must frame substantial questions of law and confine its decision to those questions.

Q: Can the High Court introduce new questions of law in the final judgment?

A: No, the High Court cannot introduce new substantial questions of law in the final judgment. It can frame additional questions but only at the time of hearing the appeal and by recording reasons.

Q: What happens if the High Court does not follow the procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

A: If the High Court does not follow the mandatory procedure, the Supreme Court can set aside the High Court’s judgment and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future cases?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in second appeals. It clarifies that High Courts must strictly adhere to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when deciding second appeals.