Shankareppa M. Mutanki Vs. B.M. Mutanki
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2000
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7821/99)
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7821/99)
Petitioner: Shankareppa M. Mutanki
Respondent: B.M. Mutanki
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2000
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7821/99)
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7821/99)
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI & V.N. KHARE, J.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 100 – Second appeal – Findings of first appellate court upset without framing any substantial question of law or even indicating such question of law. Held that High Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with second appeal. Hence appeal allowed and matter remitted back.
(Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors. (JT 1997 (5) SC 202)
2. Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors. JT 1997 (2) SC 554
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We find that the learned Single Judge upset the finding of the Appellate Court and modified the decree of the trial court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the require-ment of Section 100 C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors. (JT 1997 (5) SC 202 = 1997 (5) SCC 438) and Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors. (JT 1997 (2) SC 554 = 1997 (4) SCC 713) that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdic-tion to deal with it unless the question involved is a substan-tial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the cir-cumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judg-ment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. Keeping in view the man-date of Section 100 C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.
1. Leave granted.
2. We find that the learned Single Judge upset the finding of the Appellate Court and modified the decree of the trial court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the require-ment of Section 100 C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in K. Shitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait & Ors. (JT 1997 (5) SC 202 = 1997 (5) SCC 438) and Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors. (JT 1997 (2) SC 554 = 1997 (4) SCC 713) that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdic-tion to deal with it unless the question involved is a substan-tial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the cir-cumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judg-ment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. Keeping in view the man-date of Section 100 C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.
