Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 386
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a High Court, in a second appeal, decide the case without addressing the substantial questions of law it initially framed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this procedural lapse in a civil suit concerning property rights. The Court found that the High Court had erred by not answering the framed questions of law, leading to a remand for a fresh hearing. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land ownership. The appellant, Ranjit Kumar Karmakar, originally filed a civil suit against the respondent, Hari Shankar Das, seeking a declaration of his right, title, and interest in the suit land, confirmation of his possession, and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant. The respondent then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Tripura, which was allowed, setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. This led to the appellant approaching the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Appellant filed a civil suit (T.S. No. 103 of 2004) against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). |
| 05.04.2006 | Trial Court dismissed the suit. |
| 24.04.2007 | First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. |
| 24.09.2014 | High Court of Tripura allowed the second appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. |
| 16.04.2019 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and remands the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially dismissed the appellant’s suit. The First Appellate Court then reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the appellant. The High Court, in a second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s order. The High Court framed six substantial questions of law but did not address them while deciding the appeal.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs second appeals in India.
-
Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
This provision mandates that a second appeal can only be heard on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court. -
Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
This provision specifies that the second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial question(s) of law framed by the High Court under Section 100(4) of the Code. It also allows the respondent to argue that the framed questions do not arise or are not substantial questions of law. The High Court can frame additional questions of law, but must assign reasons for doing so.
The Court emphasized that the High Court must confine its inquiry to the framed questions of law and not go beyond them.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the High Court erred by not addressing the substantial questions of law it had framed while admitting the second appeal. The respondent did not make any specific arguments that are mentioned in the judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court was correct in allowing the second appeal without addressing the substantial questions of law it had framed.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the second appeal without addressing the substantial questions of law it had framed? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by not answering the substantial questions of law framed by it while admitting the second appeal. The Court emphasized that the High Court is bound to confine its inquiry to the questions framed under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any authorities in this judgment.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | N/A | The Court relied on this provision to highlight that a second appeal is to be heard only on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court. |
Judgment
| Party Submission | How it was treated by the Court? |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission that the High Court did not answer any of the six substantial questions of law framed. | The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission and noted that the High Court did not answer any of the six substantial questions of law. |
| Appellant’s Submission that the High Court went into discussions on issues which were not the subject matter of the six questions framed. | The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission and noted that the High Court discussed issues which were not the subject matter of the six questions framed. |
| Appellant’s Submission that the High Court decided the second appeal as if it was deciding the first appeal. | The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission and noted that the High Court decided the second appeal as if it was deciding the first appeal. |
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, stating that it was not legally sustainable as the High Court failed to answer the substantial questions of law it had framed.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse on the part of the High Court in not addressing the substantial questions of law framed by it. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires the High Court to confine its inquiry to the framed questions of law. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the High Court adheres to the statutory requirements while deciding a second appeal.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Failure to answer substantial questions of law | 60% |
| Violation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court stated:
-
“Section 100 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), in express terms, provides that the second appeal shall be heard only on the substantial question(s) of law framed by the High Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code.”
-
“Therefore, the High Court has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) framed and not beyond it.”
-
“Since the High Court failed to answer the six questions (set out in Para 2 of impugned order) either way on their respective merits and yet proceeded to allow the second appeal, such order, in our view, is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside.”
The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case, as it was remanding the matter to the High Court. The Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
Key Takeaways
- High Courts must strictly adhere to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while deciding second appeals.
- A second appeal can only be decided on the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court.
- Failure to address the framed questions of law can lead to the setting aside of the High Court’s order by the Supreme Court.
Directions
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court of Tripura for a fresh hearing on the second appeal, directing the High Court to decide the case on its merits in accordance with the law, and uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or the Supreme Court’s order.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the procedural requirements for second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It emphasizes the necessity for High Courts to address the substantial questions of law framed by them, thereby ensuring a focused and legally sound adjudication process. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing. The Court emphasized that the High Court must address the substantial questions of law framed by it while admitting the second appeal. This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in the judicial process, particularly in second appeals.