HEMAVATHI AND ORS. versus V. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.

HEMAVATHI AND ORS. versus V. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.

The High Court erred in admitting and allowing the Regular Second Appeal at the stage of admission without framing and answering any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC and in doing so without issuing notice to and hearing all respondents; where delay in filing a Regular Appeal is condoned the proper course is to remit to the first appellate court to consider the Regular Appeal on merits unless the High Court formulates and decides substantial question(s) of law. Consequently the impugned High Court judgment and the review order were set aside and the matters remanded to the High Court to proceed in accordance with law and to bring the legal representatives of the...

Parties
Appellant: Hemavathi and Ors.; Respondent: V. Hombegowda; Respondent (deceased): Venkataramanappa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders in RSA No.291/2022 (regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 Cpc) and Review Petition No.536/2022
Outcome
Appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
Section 100 CPC, Regular Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Condonation of Delay, Practice and Procedure, Remand
Civil Procedure Appeal Section 100 CPC Regular Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Condonation of Delay Practice and Procedure 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hemavathi and Ors.

Appellant

V. Hombegowda

Respondent

Venkataramanappa

Respondent (deceased)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders in RSA No.291/2022 (regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 Cpc) and Review Petition No.536/2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a High Court can admit and allow a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC without framing the substantial question(s) of law
  2. 2 Whether a Regular Second Appeal can be allowed at the stage of admission without issuing notice to and hearing all respondents
  3. 3 Whether, upon condoning delay in filing a Regular Appeal, the High Court should remit the matter to the first appellate court for consideration on merits rather than remanding to the trial court

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in admitting and allowing the Regular Second Appeal at the stage of admission without framing and answering any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC and in doing so without issuing notice to and hearing all respondents; where delay in filing a Regular Appeal is condoned the proper course is to remit to the first appellate court to consider the Regular Appeal on merits unless the High Court formulates and decides substantial question(s) of law. Consequently the impugned High Court judgment and the review order were set aside and the matters remanded to the High Court to proceed in accordance with law and to bring the legal representatives of the...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 13.04.2022 in RSA No.291/2022 and order dated 23.06.2022 in Review Petition No.536/2022 set aside
  • Matters remanded to the High Court to consider the Regular Second Appeal in accordance with law and mindful of the defects identified