Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan explained the existing stance of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

• The Supreme Court (SC) gave the observation in the matter of Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar & Anr.

Background

• The matter which was tabled before the court is that the Karnataka High Court disposed of the regular second appeal as a regular first appeal.
  • The HC gone into details of the evidence.
• No substantial questions of law, which ought to have been framed and answered in the regular second appeal, were even raised in the judgment by the HC.

Court’s Observation

The SC reiterated the observation given in the case of Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, (2000) by stating that Section 100 of the CPC does not confer any jurisdiction on the HC to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under the aforementioned section.

Second Appeal

• The SC explained the concept of Second Appeal in the following words:
  • The First Appellate Court is the final court on questions of facts.
  • The exclusive jurisdiction of the HC to deal with a regular second appeal is stipulated in Section 100 of the CPC, which grants power to the HC to consider a regular Second Appeal only on a substantial question of law.
    • Such substantial question(s) of law ought to be answered.
  • It is the practice and a mandatory requirement that at the time of admitting the regular second appeal, substantial question(s) of law must be framed, on the basis of which the arguments must be advanced and a decision given thereon.
  • It is also permitted that once the arguments have been advanced, the court is at liberty to re-frame or frame fresh substantial questions of law and answer the same on hearing.
    • However, SC in the case of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Utaradi Mutt (2016) stated that HC is obliged to formulate the substantial question of law if it cannot find it during the admission process of a Second Appeal.

Substantial Question of Law

• The SC in the case of Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) explained the concept in the following words:
  • It must be tested whether the question is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.
  • Or whether it is not finally decided, or not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.
  • If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law.

Legal Provision

Section 100 of CPC: Second Appeal

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.