S.100 CPC | High Court Must Assign Reasons For Framing Additional Question Of Law In Second Appeals : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Sep.3) observed that it is mandatory for the High Courts to record reasons while framing an additional question of law which was not originally raised in a second appeal in a civil case.Proviso to Section 100(5) CPC grants power to the High Courts to frame an additional question of law, but this power cannot be routinely exercised, but only in exceptional circumstances, for which a reason needs to be recorded by the High Court, the court said. “High Court is competent and endowed with discretionary jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law not stated when the second appeal was admitted. The High Court is entitled to formulate an additional substantial question of law for reasons to be recorded if the High Court is of the view that the case involves such a question of law. The proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the CPC comes into operation in exceptional cases, albeit for strong and convincing reasons to be specifically recorded by the High Court.”, the court said.Further, the Court laid down the principles emanating from precedents on framing an additional substantial question of law under the proviso to Section 100(5) of the CPC as follows:1. A substantial question of law must be grounded in the parties' pleadings and the findings of lower courts. Thus, it must be exercised if it is so fundamental that it goes to the very root of the matter.2 The jurisdiction to frame a new question of law is exceptional and should not be exercised routinely unless there is a strong and convincing reason to do so.3 The proviso allows the court to hear an appeal on “any other substantial question of law,” which implies that at least one substantial question of law must have been formulated at the admission stage. The power to reformulate or add a question arises only if a substantial question of law has already been framed. 4 The High Court must be “satisfied” that the new question is a substantial question of law and not a mere legal plea.5 The court is mandatorily required to record its reasons for framing an additional substantial question of law. 6 The opposite party (the respondent) must be given a fair and proper opportunity to contest the new question. Parties must be put on notice and be allowed to present their arguments on the newly framed question. Framing a question while dictating the judgment without hearing the parties would be improper. The bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the case arising out of Kerala High Court's decision, which had framed an additional substantial question of law without assigning reasons for framing an entirely new question that was never pleaded nor dealt with in the trial. Briefly put, the registered joint will, dated January 27, 2003, gave Appellant ownership of the family's two properties, subject to his paying sums between ₹50,000 and ₹1,00,000 to his six siblings within five years of both parents' deaths. While the Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld the will's validity, the Kerala High Court overturned these findings, reasoning that the bequest was void under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act.The issue about the Will being void under Section 67 never formed part of the pleadings nor formed part of the trial court proceedings. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti observed: “we record that in the circumstances of this case, the High Court fell in error by not recording reasons for framing the additional substantial question of law. The additional substantial question of law may be an abstract application of Section 67 without verifying the foundational facts and circumstances. The admission of a party must be in the manner known to law. An admission in pleading and evidence is certainly an admission. By appreciating an admission, the Court is entitled to apply the consequence of law. In the analysis, we notice that the relationship of DW5 with DW1 is either assumed by the Court or not contested by the parties on any of the grounds available, namely, want of pleadings, etc., before the High Court. The above consideration leads to the irrefutable conclusion that an additional substantial question of law is framed without pleadings, issues and reasons and a finding is recorded.” Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.Cause Title: C.P. FRANCIS VERSUS C.P. JOSEPH AND OTHERSCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 870Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sarath S. Janardanan, AOR Mr. S.K. Adhithyan, Adv. Mrs. Vishnupriya P. Govind, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR Mr. Philip Mathai Paikaday, Adv. Mr. A.B. Jaleel, Adv. Ms. Nazlin Jaleel, Adv. Mr. Nijaz Jaleel, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, AOR Ms. Shradha Narayan, Adv.

S.100 CPC | High Court Must Assign Reasons For Framing Additional Question Of Law In Second Appeals : Supreme Court Lays Down Principles

Yash Mittal

Tags