B.C. SHIVASHANKARA versus B.R. NAGARAJ

The High Court erred in allowing the Second Appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In absence of such formulation, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

Parties: Appellant: B.C. Shivashankara; Respondent: B.R. Nagaraj
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 27 February 2007
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal No. 5452 of 2000 / Appeal Against Judgment and Decree Dated 27.5.1998 of High Court of Karnataka in R.s.a. No. 236/1991
Outcome: Appeal disposed of, impugned judgment set aside, matter remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law, no order as to costs.
Legal Topics: Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Section 100 CPC, Formulation of Questions

Civil Procedure Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Section 100 CPC Formulation of Questions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

B.C. Shivashankara

Appellant

B.R. Nagaraj

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 5452 of 2000 / Appeal Against Judgment and Decree Dated 27.5.1998 of High Court of Karnataka in R.s.a. No. 236/1991

Legal Issues

1 Whether Second Appeal can be allowed without formulating any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
2 Applicability of Section 100(5) CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of, impugned judgment set aside, matter remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law, no order as to costs.

Orders

Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.
Matter remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law regarding Second Appeal No. 236 of 1991.