38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, April 13, 2024

High Court Not Required to Frame Substantial Question of Law While Dismissing Second Appeal: Supreme Court

By Parul Singhal      18 November, 2020 04:09 PM      0 Comments
High Court Not Required to Frame Substantial Question of Law While Dismissing Second Appeal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court is not required to frame a substantial question of law while dismissing a second appeal. 

The bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi observed, “The formulation of a substantial question of law or reformulation of the same arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law.” The contentions rose before the Apex Court in the appeal that the High Court dismissed the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law which is mandatory in terms of Section 100 of the CPC. 

The bench observed, “The Court has the power to hear an appeal on any other substantial question of law on the satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the proviso of Section 100 of the Code. Therefore, if the substantial question of law framed by the appellants is 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 High Court is not obliged to frame the substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court”.

Another issue raised in this case was that the provision of Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1974 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain boundary disputes. The court by referring to this issue that the Land Revenue Act does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of 8 Civil Court in respect of boundary disputes. The boundary disputes are between two revenues estates and do not include the demarcation of the land of the parties. 

It said, “Still further, the suit is unconditionally allowed for an injunction based upon possession of the property. The said suit could be decided only by the Civil Court as there is no mechanism prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for grant of injunction in respect of disputes relating to possession. Since there is no implied or express bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of Section 9 of the Code, the Civil Court has plenary jurisdiction to decide all disputes between the parties”. 

Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM


Trending Judiciary
Very disturbed by latest trend of lawyers commenting on pending cases: CJI

Chief Justice of India urges lawyers to prioritize court and Constitution over political beliefs, expressing concern over trend of commenting on pending cases.

08 April, 2024 11:19 AM
Trending Judiciary
Court rejects plea for interim bail to BRS leader K Kavitha

Delhi court rejects interim bail plea for BRS leader K Kavitha in money laundering case related to Delhi liquor scam. ED opposes bail.

08 April, 2024 12:14 PM
Trending Judiciary
Centre questions growing tendency among States to approach SC for funds

The Centre questions the growing trend of states approaching the Supreme Court for funds, citing timing and advocating for resolution through dialogue.

08 April, 2024 03:58 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to Centre on plea to safeguard interests of intersex children

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PIL for safeguarding intersex children's interests and regulating medical interventions. Details inside.

08 April, 2024 04:35 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email