DHARAM SINGH versus KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

DHARAM SINGH versus KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS.

The judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained as it did not formulate any substantial question of law before deciding the second appeal, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 100 CPC.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dharam Singh; Respondent: Karnail Singh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision (final Judgment and Order Dated 25.7.2006, Rs.a. No. 285 of 2000, Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Outcome
Impugned judgment of High Court set aside; matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law; appeal disposed.
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Formulation of Substantial Question of Law, Section 100 CPC
Civil Procedure Second Appeal Formulation of Substantial Question of Law Section 100 CPC

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharam Singh

Appellant

Karnail Singh and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision (final Judgment and Order Dated 25.7.2006, Rs.a. No. 285 of 2000, Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can allow a second appeal without formulating any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
  2. 2 Applicability of proviso to Section 100(5) CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained as it did not formulate any substantial question of law before deciding the second appeal, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 100 CPC.

Court Disposition

Impugned judgment of High Court set aside; matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law; appeal disposed.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the High Court for disposal of Second Appeal No.285 of 2000 in accordance with law.
  • No order as to costs.