APEX COURT HELD THAT
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – S.100 – Second Appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Mandatory requirement – Jurisdiction of High Court – Additional documents at second appellate stage – O. XLI R.27 CPC – Scope.
Trial Court decreed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Schedule ‘A’ property and declaration regarding Schedule ‘B’ property as public lane – First Appellate Court reversed decree and dismissed suit – High Court in Second Appeal restored decree of Trial Court and allowed appeal – Substantial questions of law, however, framed only in final judgment while allowing appeal – High Court also relied upon judgment dated 11.03.1969 produced at second appellate stage treating it as additional document and drawing presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act without following procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Sustainability.
Held : Scheme of Section 100 CPC contemplates mandatory two-stage exercise. High Court must first satisfy itself that case involves substantial question of law and formulate such question at threshold stage. Thereafter, Second Appeal must be heard on formulated substantial question(s) of law after affording parties opportunity to address arguments thereon.
Requirement of framing substantial question of law prior to hearing is not empty formality but mandatory safeguard controlling exercise of jurisdiction in Second Appeal. Framing substantial question of law only in final judgment, after conclusion of hearing, defeats statutory mandate and deprives parties of effective opportunity to contest maintainability and merits of proposed questions.
In present case, record disclosed that substantial questions of law were framed only in impugned judgment itself and not at admission stage or prior to hearing. Consequently, appellants were denied opportunity to advance submissions on such questions. Judgment of High Court therefore stood vitiated on this ground alone.
High Court further committed error in relying upon additional document produced at second appellate stage without following mandatory procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and without granting appellants opportunity to contest admissibility or relevance of said document.
Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with direction to first formulate substantial questions of law, hear parties thereon and thereafter decide appeal afresh in accordance with law. All questions including admissibility of additional documents left open.
Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, relied on.
(Paras 8 to 15)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
Supreme Court focused on procedural discipline governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Court noted that:
- Trial Court had decreed suit,
- First Appellate Court reversed decree,
- and High Court restored decree in Second Appeal.
However, High Court failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirement of framing substantial questions of law prior to hearing appeal. Instead, substantial questions were formulated for first time in final judgment itself while allowing Second Appeal.
Court analysed Section 100 CPC and emphasised that it creates jurisdictional limitation upon High Court in Second Appeal. Unlike first appeal, Second Appeal cannot be heard on facts generally but only on substantial question of law formally identified by Court.
Supreme Court described Section 100 CPC as involving “two-stage exercise”:
- High Court must first formulate substantial question(s) of law;
- Appeal thereafter must be heard on those formulated questions after giving parties opportunity to argue.
Court held that this safeguard is mandatory because respondent is entitled not only to argue merits of substantial question but also to contend that no such substantial question arises at all.
Supreme Court relied upon Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar reiterating that:
- substantial questions ordinarily must be framed at admission stage,
- arguments must proceed on such questions,
- and Court may subsequently reframe/add questions after hearing parties.
Court further found procedural illegality in High Court’s reliance upon additional document dated 11.03.1969 at second appellate stage without complying with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Appellants were denied opportunity to contest admissibility and relevance of said document.
Since mandatory jurisdictional requirements were violated, Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment without entering into merits and remanded matter to High Court for fresh adjudication.
RATIO
Framing of substantial question of law prior to hearing of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is mandatory and not mere procedural formality. High Court must formulate such question(s) before hearing appeal and afford parties opportunity to address arguments thereon. Framing substantial question of law only in final judgment vitiates exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Further, additional documents cannot be relied upon at second appellate stage without complying with procedure prescribed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and without granting opportunity to affected party to contest their admissibility and relevance
