CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS. versus MEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.

CHAND KAUR (D) THR. LRS. versus MEHAR KAUR (D) THR. LRS.

Framing of substantial questions of law is mandatory before deciding second appeals under Section 100 CPC; failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error and requires remand.

Parties
Appellant: Chand Kaur (D) Thr. LRS.; Respondent: Mehar Kaur (D) Thr. LRS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (appeal Against High Court Order)
Outcome
appeals allowed; impugned order set aside; second appeals restored to High Court for decision afresh
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Jurisdictional Error, Remand
Civil Procedure Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Jurisdictional Error Remand

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chand Kaur (D) Thr. LRS.

Appellant

Mehar Kaur (D) Thr. LRS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (appeal Against High Court Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can dispose of second appeals without framing substantial question(s) of law as required under Section 100 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Framing of substantial questions of law is mandatory before deciding second appeals under Section 100 CPC; failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error and requires remand.

Court Disposition

appeals allowed; impugned order set aside; second appeals restored to High Court for decision afresh

Orders

  • Impugned order set aside.
  • Second appeals restored to original numbers before High Court.