MIS. SHIV COTEX versus TIRGUN AUTO PLAST P. LTD. & ORS.

MIS. SHIV COTEX versus TIRGUN AUTO PLAST P. LTD. & ORS.

The High Court's judgment was vitiated as it failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 100 CPC by not formulating any substantial question of law, and inappropriately set aside concurrent judgments of the lower courts based on misplaced sympathy. The plaintiff, having failed to lead evidence after three opportunities, deserved no further indulgence in second appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Mis. Shiv Cotex; Respondent: Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd.; Respondent: Punjab Financial Corporation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision in RSA No. 1107 of 2008 (o&m)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Order XVII Rule 1 CPC, Adjournments, Second Appeal, Appellate Jurisdiction, Section 100 CPC
Civil Procedure Order XVII Rule 1 CPC Adjournments Second Appeal Appellate Jurisdiction Section 100 CPC

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mis. Shiv Cotex

Appellant

Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd.

Respondent

Punjab Financial Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court Decision in RSA No. 1107 of 2008 (o&m)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to further opportunity to lead evidence after repeated adjournments.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's judgment was vitiated as it failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 100 CPC by not formulating any substantial question of law, and inappropriately set aside concurrent judgments of the lower courts based on misplaced sympathy. The plaintiff, having failed to lead evidence after three opportunities, deserved no further indulgence in second appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court passed on September 20, 2010 set aside.
  • No order as to costs.