Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently criticized the Chhattisgarh High Court for failing to frame substantial questions of law in a case. Expressing its frustration, the apex court questioned how many times it must reiterate the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and the proper procedure for framing substantial questions of law.

"We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be termed even a question of law far from being a substantial question of law," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Dealing with an appeal filed by one Jaichand (Dead) through legal representatives, the bench felt the High Court ought not to have disturbed a well reasoned judgment and order passed by the first appellate court in a suit for specific performance of a contract in respect of land admeasuring 0.238 hectares situated in village Parsahi Tehsil District Bilaspur.

Having examined the facts of the matter, the bench said, "The High Court has not said a word in so far as the findings recorded by the first appellate court in regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is concerned. In the overall view of the matter, we have reached the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law".

The bench opined it is not that the High Courts are not well-versed with the principles governing Section 100 of the CPC.

"It is only the casual and callous approach on the part of the courts to apply the correct principles of law to the facts of the case that leads to passing of vulnerable orders like the one on hand," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

The bench, however, did not grant the decree of specific performance in favour of the respondents (original plaintiffs).

"We direct the appellants herein i.e. the original defendants to refund an amount of Rs 3,50,000 within a period of eight weeks from today. If the appellants herein fail to deposit this amount, then in such circumstances, the decree passed by the trial court shall stand restored," the bench ordered.

The bench thought it fit to direct the appellants (original defendants) to refund the amount of Rs 3,50,000 to the respondents-original plaintiffs, keeping in mind that the plaintiffs on their own stated before the top court that the market value of the suit property as on date was around Rs 3,50,000.

In the case in hand, the court noted the agreement of sale between the parties was of August 24, 1996. The suit property ad measured half an acre and the sale consideration fixed in the agreement of sale was Rs 50,000 per acre. Since the land measured about half an acre, the sale consideration came to Rs 25,000. The plaintiffs instituted the suit after a period of eight years that was in the year 2003.

"The High Court seems to have proceeded under a misconception of fact that the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court only on the issue of hardship, relying on the provisions of Section 20(2) (b) of the specific relief act, 1963. Whereas in fact the first appellate court also expressed its doubt as regards the plaintiffs readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract," the court said.

"The High Court has not said a word in so far as the findings recorded by the first appellate court in regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is concerned," the bench added.

While setting aside the High Court's order, the bench once again explained the well-settled principles governing the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Supreme Court cited several landmark judgments to underline the scope and limitations of second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

In Navaneethammal Vs Arjuna Chetty (1996), it was held by it that the High Court should not reappreciate the evidence to reach another possible view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court.

In Kshitisn Chandra Purkait Vs Santhosh Kumar Purkait (1997), the top court held that in the Second Appeal, the High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of law.

In Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade Vs Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (1999), the top court held keeping in view the amendment made in 1976, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC only on the basis of substantial questions of law which are to be framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and the Second Appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered by the High Court under Section 100 CPC without following the procedure cannot be sustained.

The top court in Kondira Dagadu Kadam Vs Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999) stated the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.

The bench, in the present matter, said, "It is thus clear that under Section 100, CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence".

The High Court in the Second Appeal can interfere with the findings of the trial court on the ground of failure on the part of the trial as well as the first appellate court, as the case may be, when such findings are either recorded without proper construction of the documents or failure to follow the decisions of the court and acted on assumption not supported by evidence. Under Section 103, CPC, the High Court has got power to determine the issue of fact, it said.

Case Title: Jaichand (Dead) Through LRs & Ors Vs Sahnulal & Ors