LATEST UPDATE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100(1) - Second appeal can be dismissed without even formulating the substantial question of law – High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. Held, If the substantial question of law framed by the appellants are found to be arising in the case, only then the High Court is required to formulate the same for consideration. If no such question arises, it is not necessary for the High Court to frame any substantial question of law. The formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law. The High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. #2020 SCeJ 1974
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100(1) - Contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law - The substantial question of law is required to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal - If the High Court is satisfied that such substantial question of law is involved, it is required to formulate that question - The appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated - However, the Court has the power to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the proviso of Section 100 of the Code. #2020 SCeJ 1974
CPC 1908, (V of 1908) S. 100 - Substantial question of law - Specific performance - Interpretation of any terms and conditions of a document/agreement constitutes a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code, more so when both the parties admit the document - High Court should have first framed appropriate substantial question(s) arising in the case especially on the questions in relation to the true intent, rights and obligations arising from Clauses of the agreement in the context of pleadings and the reversing findings of the two Courts below and then should have called upon the respondents to reply to the questions framed keeping in view its jurisdiction under Section 100(5) of the Code and its proviso - High Court also could have framed questions on the issues, which are material for grant or refusal of specific performance, pleadings of the parties, and the reversing findings of the two Courts below on such issues with a view to find out as to which finding is more preferable - Specific Relief Act, Section 16. 2019 SCeJournal 191