Subray Gopal Krishna Hegde Vs. Prabhakar Venkataramana
EmailAppeal: (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11822 of 1999)
Petitioner: Subray Gopal Krishna Hegde
Respondent: Prabhakar Venkataramana
Apeal: (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11822 of 1999)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Second appeal – Findings of facts by Courts below – No substantial question of law formulated and appeal disposed of. Held that High Court orders not sustainable. Second appeal remitted back to dispose of appeal as per law.
(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. We find that the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1998 disposing of Second Appeal No. 240 of 1998 has interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below without framing any substantial question of law. This Court has repeatedly stated in various decisions that the High Court while disposing of the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should first formulate the substantial question of law if arises, and then dispose of the same in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. In the present case, the High Court has committed the error in disposing of the Second Appeal without framing any substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the said High Court
order is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
4. We remand this case back to the High Court to frame, if any, substantial question of law and after hearing the parties, decide the said question if so arises. With the said observations, the present Appeal succeeds. Cost on the parties.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. We find that the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1998 disposing of Second Appeal No. 240 of 1998 has interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below without framing any substantial question of law. This Court has repeatedly stated in various decisions that the High Court while disposing of the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should first formulate the substantial question of law if arises, and then dispose of the same in terms of Section 100 C.P.C. In the present case, the High Court has committed the error in disposing of the Second Appeal without framing any substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the said High Court
order is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
4. We remand this case back to the High Court to frame, if any, substantial question of law and after hearing the parties, decide the said question if so arises. With the said observations, the present Appeal succeeds. Cost on the parties.
