Supreme Court Remands Second Appeal Due to Procedural Errors: Surat Singh vs. Siri Bhagwan (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 140
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Is it acceptable for a High Court to decide a second appeal without properly framing a substantial question of law and without hearing all the parties involved? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical procedural issue in a civil appeal. The Court found that the High Court had not followed the correct procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when deciding a second appeal, leading to a remand of the case.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, found that the High Court of Punjab & Haryana had erred in deciding the second appeal without hearing one of the respondents and by framing the substantial question of law only in the concluding paragraph of the judgment. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by Murti Devi and her daughter, Bholi Devi, against Siri Bhagwan in the Court of Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Rewari. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a decree obtained by Siri Bhagwan against Murti Devi on 11.11.1980, concerning land measuring 37 Kanals 14 Marlas in Village Alampur, was null and void due to fraud and misrepresentation. Murti Devi claimed that Siri Bhagwan had taken advantage of her illiteracy and poverty.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.05.1984. Murti Devi then filed a first appeal before the District Judge, who allowed the appeal on 13.11.1986, setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment and decreeing the plaintiff’s suit. Siri Bhagwan, aggrieved by this decision, filed a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

During the pendency of the second appeal, Surat Singh purchased the suit land from Murti Devi on 30.07.1988 for Rs. 80,000/-. Surat Singh then applied to be added as a party-respondent in the second appeal, which was allowed on 04.01.1989. Murti Devi passed away, but the litigation continued with her daughters as parties.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed Murti Devi’s suit. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the Trial Court’s decision, decreeing the suit in favor of Murti Devi. This led to Siri Bhagwan filing a second appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court, after a long pendency, allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment of the first Appellate Court and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. This was done without hearing Surat Singh, who was a party-respondent. Surat Singh then filed an application for recalling the judgment, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This section governs second appeals to the High Court. It stipulates that a second appeal can only be entertained if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a “substantial question of law.” The appellant must precisely state the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal. The High Court is then required to formulate that question if it is satisfied that such a question exists.

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 sub-section 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 formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

Arguments

The primary argument of the appellant, Surat Singh, was that the High Court had erred procedurally by not hearing him before deciding the second appeal and by not framing a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal. He also contended that the High Court had framed the substantial question of law for the first time in the concluding paragraph of its judgment, which is contrary to the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court had correctly decided the second appeal on merits.

The High Court framed the substantial question of law as: “The substantial question of law would, therefore, be whether the finding of the learned lower appellate court terming the transfer on the basis of a consent decree as a gift in the absence of any pleadings was perverse or not?”

The appellant, Surat Singh, argued that the High Court should have framed this question at the time of admission of the second appeal, not at the time of delivering the final judgment. He further argued that he was not given an opportunity to argue against the framing of this question of law or to present his case on merits before the High Court.

The respondent, Siri Bhagwan, argued that the High Court had correctly decided the second appeal on the merits of the case. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the procedural irregularities committed by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal filed by defendant No. 1-Siri Bhagwan and thereby was justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit by restoring the judgment/decree of the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court also considered the procedural aspect of the High Court not framing a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal, and not hearing the respondent No. 4 (Surat Singh) before passing the final judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Law:

• Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179 – The Supreme Court referred to this case to explain the scope, jurisdiction and what constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Baru Ram vs. Parsanni (Smt.) , AIR 1959 SC 93 – The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize the principle that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and no other.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The Supreme Court extensively discussed the provisions of this section, emphasizing the mandatory procedure for framing substantial questions of law in second appeals.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs., (2001) 3 SCC 179* to explain the scope and jurisdiction of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing the need for a substantial question of law to be framed.

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Baru Ram vs. Parsanni (Smt.) , AIR 1959 SC 93* to emphasize the principle that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and no other.

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* to explain the procedure for second appeals, particularly the requirement to frame substantial questions of law, and held that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural irregularities committed by the High Court. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires the High Court to frame a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the second appeal and to hear all the parties involved before passing a final judgment. The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the need to ensure that the statutory procedure is followed meticulously to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal requirements of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The focus was on the procedural lapses by the High Court rather than the merits of the dispute.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ The High Court must frame a substantial question of law at the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

✓ All parties to a second appeal must be given an opportunity to be heard before the High Court makes a final decision.

✓ Failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can lead to the remand of the case by the Supreme Court.

✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory procedures to ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the second appeal afresh on merits. The High Court was instructed to frame proper substantial question(s) of law after hearing the appellant and, if it finds that any substantial question(s) of law arises, to formulate such question(s) and hear the appeal accordingly. The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to decide the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion about any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must strictly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when dealing with second appeals. This includes framing a substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal and ensuring that all parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard. The judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of these procedural requirements and clarifies that failure to comply with them can lead to the remand of the case. There was no change in the previous position of law but the Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of following the procedure laid down in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The case was remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits, after following the correct procedure under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure and the importance of ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved in a second appeal.