Top
Editors Pick

High Court cannot reverse a Judgment without formulating a substantial 'Question of Law' in a Second Appeal; SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law News Network
28 Oct 2015 1:16 PM GMT
High Court cannot reverse a Judgment without formulating a substantial
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that in no circumstances the High Court can reverse the  judgment  of the trial court and  the  first  appellate  court  without  formulating  the substantial question of law and complying with  the  mandatory  requirements of Section 100 CPC.

The Bench was examining the question ‘whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned  judgment without formulating any substantial question of law?’

After referring various decisions, the Bench summarized the following principles ;

(i) On the day when the second  appeal  is  listed  for  hearing  on admission if the High Court is satisfied that  no  substantial  question  of law  is  involved,  it  shall  dismiss  the  second  appeal   without   even formulating the substantial question of law;

(ii) In cases where the High Court after  hearing  the  appellate  is satisfied that the  substantial  question  of  law  is  involved,  it  shall formulate that question  and  then  the  appeal  shall  be  heard  on  those substantial question of law, after giving notice and opportunity of  hearing to the respondent;

(iii) In no circumstances the High Court can reverse the  judgment  of the trial court and  the  first  appellate  court  without  formulating  the substantial question of law and complying with  the  mandatory  requirements of Section 100 CPC.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story