How Many Times Apex Court Should Keep Explaining How A Substantial Question Of Law Should Be Framed?: SC On Scope Of Second Appeal U/s 100 CPC
|The Supreme Court has reiterated the well-settled principles governing the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and how a substantial question of law should be framed.
The Court set aside the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance and upheld the Appellate Court's decision. The Court reiterated that under Section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be termed even a question of law far from being a substantial question of law. How many times the Apex Court should keep explaining the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and how a substantial question of law should be framed? We may once again explain the well-settled principles governing the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.”
AOR Sameer Shrivastava represented the Appellant, while AOR Abhinav Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance alleging the defendants' failure to execute the sale deed seven years after the agreement. The Trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration.
The first Appellate Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by the plaintiffs and set aside that part of the decree passed by the Trial Court directing specific performance. It allowed an alternative relief of refunding the earnest money with litigation costs.
In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court restored the Trial Court's decree, holding that the first appellate court's decision was arbitrary. However, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order passed by the High Court was not sustainable in law. “The High Court ought not to have disturbed a well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the first appellate court,” it stated.
The Court noted, “The High Court has not said a word in so far as the findings recorded by the first appellate court in regard to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is concerned.”
The Bench referred to its decision in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar (1999), wherein it was held that “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.”
“It is not that the High Courts are not well-versed with the principles governing Section 100 of the CPC. It is only the casual and callous approach on the part of the courts to apply the correct principles of law to the facts of the case that leads to passing of vulnerable orders like the one on hand,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “As we are not granting the decree of specific performance in favour of the respondents herein (original plaintiffs), we direct the appellants herein i.e. the original defendants to refund an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) within a period of eight weeks from today. If the appellants herein fail to deposit this amount, then in such circumstances, the decree passed by the trial court shall stand restored.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Jaichand (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Sahnulal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 996)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sameer Shrivastava; Advocates Yashika Varshney and Palak Mathur
Respondents: AOR Abhinav Shrivastava