Second Appeal and Substantial Question of Law: Supreme Court Affirms Punjab Courts Act’s Applicability

The case of Kirodi (Since Deceased) Through His LR vs. Ram Parkash & Ors. revolves around the legal requirement of framing a substantial question of law in second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court addressed whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in a second appeal was valid despite not framing a substantial question of law. The ruling clarifies the interplay between the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and the CPC.

The appellant had challenged the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing that the second appeal was decided without formulating a substantial question of law. The respondent contended that under the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, there was no such requirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Constitution Bench decision in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. vs. Chandrika & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157 had already settled the issue in favor of the Punjab Courts Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated in Punjab, where a regular second appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant contended that the appeal was decided without adhering to the mandatory requirement of framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, as amended in 1976.

The appellant relied on several Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the necessity of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals. However, the respondent pointed out that the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, governed second appeals in Punjab and Haryana, and it did not require the framing of substantial questions of law.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by legal counsel, argued:

• The High Court erred by deciding the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law, violating Section 100 CPC.
• The Supreme Court, in cases such as Surat Singh (Dead) vs. Siri Bhagwan & Ors. and Chand Kaur (D) Through LRs. vs. Mehar Kaur (D) Through LRs., had reaffirmed the necessity of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals.
• The requirement under Section 100 CPC is mandatory and overrides any state legislation, including the Punjab Courts Act.
• The Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi was not brought to the attention of the benches deciding earlier cases, leading to incorrect precedent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent countered:

• The Punjab Courts Act, 1918, continued to apply to second appeals in Punjab and Haryana.
• The Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi had already settled that pre-Constitution laws, such as the Punjab Courts Act, were not overridden by Section 100 CPC.
• Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act did not require the framing of substantial questions of law, distinguishing it from the general requirement under Section 100 CPC.
• The appellant’s reliance on earlier Supreme Court judgments was misplaced, as those decisions did not consider the Constitution Bench ruling.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Section 100 CPC in Punjab and Haryana, particularly in light of the Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi. The key legal observations were:

• Section 97(1) of the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, did not repeal the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as it was a pre-Constitution law saved by Article 372(1) of the Constitution.
• The requirement of framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC did not apply to second appeals governed by the Punjab Courts Act.
• The Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi had settled that state laws predating the Constitution could not be overridden by CPC amendments unless specifically repealed.
• The earlier Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the appellant were incorrect as they did not consider the Constitution Bench ruling.

Key Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The High Court’s decision in the second appeal was valid even without framing a substantial question of law.
• The Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi applied, preserving the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
• The earlier Supreme Court judgments requiring substantial questions of law in Punjab and Haryana were not binding as they overlooked the Constitution Bench ruling.
• Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act continued to govern second appeals in Punjab and Haryana.
• The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Conclusion and Impact

This Supreme Court ruling clarifies the application of second appeal procedures in Punjab and Haryana, reinforcing the continued applicability of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The judgment underscores the significance of Constitution Bench rulings and ensures that state-specific legal provisions remain effective unless expressly repealed.

The decision will guide future second appeals in Punjab and Haryana, preventing unnecessary procedural challenges based on CPC amendments that do not override pre-existing state laws.

Petitioner Name: Kirodi (Since Deceased) Through His LR.
Respondent Name: Ram Parkash & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Punjab and Haryana.
Judgment Date: 10-05-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kirodi (Since Deceas vs Ram Parkash & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category