LI Network
Published on: 24 August 2023 at 11:30 IST
In a recent development, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the established legal principle concerning Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Court clarified that while the first appellate court is the final authority on questions of fact, the High Court can entertain a second appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law.
This significant legal clarification was made during the hearing of an appeal by a Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The appeal in question challenged a judgment issued by the High Court of Karnataka on January 6, 2023, pertaining to Regular Second Appeal No.5085 of 2011.
The central issue revolved around whether the impugned judgment adhered to the legal framework under Section 100 CPC.
As per this provision, a regular second appeal can be filed in the High Court if the case involves a substantial question of law.
Senior Advocate Sri V. Chitambaresh, representing the appellant, contended that the impugned judgment failed to address any substantial questions of law, as required for a regular second appeal.
Chitambaresh argued that the High Court treated the case as a first appeal by delving into the details of evidence, contrary to the statutory requirement that a regular second appeal must rest upon substantial questions of law.
The respondent’s advocate, however, supported the High Court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, reiterated the significance of Section 100 CPC in conferring the High Court with the jurisdiction to consider regular second appeals solely based on substantial questions of law.
The Court also referred to various legal precedents, including the landmark case of Roop Singh v. Ram Singh (2000) , which emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is restricted to cases involving substantial questions of law, excluding interference in factual matters.
Justice Nagarathna’s judgment in Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Utaradi Mutt, 2016, was also cited by the Court, highlighting that the High Court must examine whether substantial questions of law exist before admitting a second appeal, and if not, it must formulate such questions before proceeding.
Based on these principles, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the High Court to reexamine the case, ensuring that substantial questions of law were appropriately addressed during the admission process.
The High Court was instructed to frame substantial questions of law if necessary, hear arguments from both sides, and subsequently dispose of the second appeal in accordance with the law.
