VIPIN KUMAR versus JAYDEEP & OTHERS

VIPIN KUMAR versus JAYDEEP & OTHERS

The Supreme Court found a miscarriage of justice because the appellant was not properly served and not heard in S.A. No.140/2016 and the High Court allowed the second appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC; therefore the impugned orders and judgment were set aside and S.A. No.140/2016 was restored for rehearing with directions to frame substantial questions of law and permit additional evidence in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: Vipin Kumar; Respondents: Jaydeep & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Second Appeal, Substantial Question of Law, Service of Notice, Fraud on Court, Review and Recall, Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Second Appeal Substantial Question of Law Service of Notice Fraud on Court Review and Recall Order XLVII Rule 9 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vipin Kumar

Appellant

Jaydeep & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second appeal (S.A. No.140/2016) was allowed ex parte without service and without framing any substantial question of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice
  2. 2 Whether a review/recall of the High Court orders is maintainable in view of Order XLVII Rule 9 CPC and prior dismissal of SLPs by this Court
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud justify recalling and restoring the second appeal for rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found a miscarriage of justice because the appellant was not properly served and not heard in S.A. No.140/2016 and the High Court allowed the second appeal without formulating any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 CPC; therefore the impugned orders and judgment were set aside and S.A. No.140/2016 was restored for rehearing with directions to frame substantial questions of law and permit additional evidence in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 05.01.2021, Review order dated 11.10.2019 and judgment dated 01.07.2019 are set aside
  • S.A. No.140/2016 is restored on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand for rehearing