Supreme Court Reiterates Position of Law on Section 100 of CPC
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, has reaffirmed the established position of law regarding Section 100 of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure). The Court emphasized that the first appellate court is the final authority on questions of facts, but a second appeal can be raised by the High Court if there is a substantial question of law that needs to be addressed.
Background of the Case
The present appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeal No. 5085 of 2011. The main issue to be decided was whether the judgment in question contradicted the provisions laid down under Section 100 CPC. This section states that a regular second appeal can be filed in the High Court only if it involves a substantial question of law.
Arguments Presented
Sri V. Chitambaresh, the Senior Advocate representing the appellant, argued that the impugned judgment did not raise any substantial questions of law that needed to be answered in the regular second appeal. Chitambaresh pointed out that the High Court had treated the appeal as a first appeal and examined the evidence in detail, despite the fact that a regular second appeal should only be considered on substantial questions of law. On the other hand, the advocate representing the respondent supported the High Court’s judgment and decision.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
After hearing the arguments of both parties, the Court reiterated that the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with a regular second appeal is provided for in Section 100 of the CPC. The Court also referred to various judgments, including the landmark case of Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000) 3 SCC 708, which affirmed that the High Court’s jurisdiction in entertaining a second appeal is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law and does not extend to pure questions of fact.
Based on these observations, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court. It instructed the High Court to determine whether substantial questions were framed at the time of admitting the matter and, if not, to frame the substantial questions of law after hearing the counsel for both parties. The High Court was then directed to dispose of the second appeal in accordance with the law.
Citation and Link to Order
The case is titled Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar & Anr., SLP (C) No.12163 of 2023. The citation for this case is 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688. To read or download the full order, click here.
Summary:
- The Supreme Court re-iterated the established position of law related to Section 100 of the CPC.
- First appellate court is the final court on questions of facts.
- A second appeal can be considered by the High Court if there is any substantial question of law.
- The present appeal assailed the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka.
- The core issue was whether the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down under Section 100 CPC.
- The appellant argued that no substantial questions of law were raised or answered in the impugned judgment.
- The Court observed that the High Court must consider regular second appeals only on substantial questions of law.
- The Court referred to various judgments on the practice to be followed in regular second appeals.
- The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.
- The High Court was directed to ascertain whether substantial questions were framed and, if not, to frame them.
- The second appeal is to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News
Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.
For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com
