Second Appeal Procedure in Civil Cases: Supreme Court Emphasizes Framing of Substantial Questions of Law

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Sudam Kisan Gavane (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Manik Ananta Shikketod (D) By LRs. & Ors., emphasizing the importance of framing substantial questions of law before hearing a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The judgment reinforces procedural fairness and ensures that parties are given a fair opportunity to address the questions that determine the outcome of an appeal.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, which was admitted by the High Court on June 11, 1990, without framing any substantial question of law. The case was subsequently heard on May 2, 2009, and judgment was reserved. However, the judgment, delivered on June 10, 2009, mentioned certain substantial questions of law that had not been framed or communicated to the parties during the hearing.

The appellants challenged the High Court’s procedure, arguing that it deprived them of the opportunity to properly address the legal issues in dispute. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the High Court’s approach complied with the requirements of Section 100 of the CPC.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether a second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be admitted without framing substantial questions of law.
• Whether a High Court can frame substantial questions of law at the time of delivering judgment, without informing the parties during the hearing.
• Whether the absence of framed questions of law vitiates the High Court’s judgment.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants contended:

• The High Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of framing substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the appeal.
• The parties had no opportunity to argue on the specific legal issues since they were framed only at the time of delivering judgment.
• The High Court’s procedure was unfair and violated the principles of natural justice.
• The appeal should be remanded for a fresh hearing with properly framed substantial questions of law.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents countered:

• The High Court did discuss substantial legal issues in its judgment, even if they were not formally framed at the time of admission.
• The appellants had ample opportunity to argue their case, and the lack of explicitly framed questions did not prejudice them.
• Remanding the case would lead to unnecessary delays in a matter that had already been pending for decades.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Framing of Substantial Questions of Law is Mandatory

The Court reiterated that under Section 100(1) of the CPC, a second appeal can only be admitted if the High Court is satisfied that it involves a substantial question of law. It emphasized:

“An appeal under Section 100 CPC must be heard only on substantial questions of law that are explicitly framed. The failure to do so before hearing the appeal is a fundamental procedural lapse.”

2. Importance of Providing Fair Opportunity to Parties

The Court stressed that parties must be informed of the specific legal questions they need to address during the appeal hearing. It noted:

“The parties must know what substantial questions of law are being considered by the Court so that they can properly assist in addressing those issues.”

3. Admitting Appeals Without Framing Questions Violates Procedural Law

The Court observed that the High Court had admitted the appeal without formulating questions of law and later framed them only while delivering the judgment. It held:

“This procedure is contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 100 CPC. The High Court cannot formulate questions of law at the stage of dictation of judgment, as it deprives parties of a meaningful hearing.”

4. The Power to Frame Additional Questions of Law

The Court clarified that while additional substantial questions of law can be framed at the final hearing, the Court must record reasons and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond:

“The proviso to Section 100(5) CPC allows the Court to formulate additional substantial questions of law at the time of final hearing, but only after recording reasons and ensuring fairness to the parties.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The High Court erred in hearing and deciding the appeal without framing substantial questions of law at the admission stage.
• The judgment of the High Court was set aside.
• The matter was remanded to the High Court with directions to first frame substantial questions of law and then hear the appeal afresh.
• The High Court was requested to give priority to the case, as it was a second appeal pending since 1990.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 100 CPC and ensures procedural fairness in second appeals. It prevents arbitrary appellate decisions and upholds the principle that parties must be given a fair opportunity to argue specific legal issues. The ruling serves as a crucial precedent for future appellate cases, ensuring that High Courts adhere strictly to the legal framework governing second appeals.

Petitioner Name: Sudam Kisan Gavane (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors..
Respondent Name: Manik Ananta Shikketod (D) By LRs. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 29-08-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Sudam Kisan Gavane ( vs Manik Ananta Shikket Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 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