SURAT SINGH (DEAD) versus SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS.

SURAT SINGH (DEAD) versus SIRI BHAGWAN & ORS.

The impugned judgment cannot be sustained as the High Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC, including framing substantial question(s) of law at the admission stage and granting respondents a right of hearing before allowing the appeal. The omission resulted in jurisdictional error and procedural prejudice to the respondents, justifying remand for fresh hearing.

Parties
Appellant: Surat Singh (Dead); Respondent No.1: Siri Bhagwan; Respondent No.2: Smt. Bholi Devi; Plaintiff (original): Murti Devi (Deceased)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Passed by High Court; Remand to High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Judgment of High Court set aside; Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision.
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Procedural Compliance Under Section 100 CPC
Civil Procedure Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Procedural Compliance Under 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surat Singh (Dead)

Appellant

Siri Bhagwan

Respondent No.1

Smt. Bholi Devi

Respondent No.2

Murti Devi (Deceased)

Plaintiff (original)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Judgment and Order Passed by High Court; Remand to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court followed the mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC while allowing the second appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred by not framing substantial question of law at the admission stage and by not hearing contesting respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned judgment cannot be sustained as the High Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC, including framing substantial question(s) of law at the admission stage and granting respondents a right of hearing before allowing the appeal. The omission resulted in jurisdictional error and procedural prejudice to the respondents, justifying remand for fresh hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Judgment of High Court set aside; Matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment set aside.
  • Case remanded to High Court for deciding second appeal afresh on merits.