Supreme Court of India
NEK PAL & ORS.versusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 574
- Decided
- 26 July 2024
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC can be finally heard only on substantial questions of law that are framed at the time of admission or any time thereafter before the hearing; failure to do so renders the hearing illegal.
Summary
The appellants challenged a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court admitted the appeal without formulating any substantial question of law at the time of admission and later, during the hearing, confined itself to three questions. The Supreme Court held that a second appeal can be finally heard only on substantial questions of law that are framed either at the time of admission or any time thereafter before the hearing, and that hearing without such framing is illegal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restored the second appeals to the High Court’s file, and directed the High Court to frame the questions and schedule a hearing. The civil appeals were partly allowed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether substantial questions of law must be formulated at the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, or may be formulated later.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Formulation of question of law under Section 100 CPCSubstantial question of law for second appealSecond Appeal
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1040 : 2024 INSC 574
Nek Pal & Ors.
v.
Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8038-8039 of 2024)
26 July 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether substantial questions of law are required to be formulated at
the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or at any time subsequent thereto.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Substantial
question of law:
Held: Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the
time of admission of the appeal, or any time subsequent thereto,
a second appeal cannot be finally heard – The reason is that a
second appeal can be heard only on a substantial question of law
formulated earlier – The act of finally hearing a second appeal without
framing any substantial question of law is itself illegal – The High
Court could have framed substantial questions of law, and heard the
appeal after a few days, so that the Advocates had notice that the
appeal will be heard on specific substantial questions of law. [Para 3]
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Formulation of question of law under Section 100 CPC; Substantial
question of law for second appeal; Second Appeal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8038-8039 of
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2017 of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in SA No. 34 and 48 of 2003
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1041
Nek Pal & Ors. v. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Kamaljeet Singh, Sumit Bansal, Udaibir
Singh Khochar, Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Tulna Rampal, Ananta Prasad
Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Raju Sonkar, Mrs. Priti Rashmi,
Ms. Priya Rastogi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Sunil Prakash Sharma,
Kumar Deepraj, Ms. Aditi Lekhi, Vinay Garg, Ms. Neetu Rawat,
Upendra Mishra, Vikas Mehta, Mrs. Shashi Kapila, Ankit Vashisht,
Pavesh, Shrivandit Mishra, Suraj, Sidharth Yadav, M/s. Anuradha &
Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Our attention is invited to the impugned judgment of the High Court in
a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short, “the CPC”). Following is the relevant part of the
impugned judgment:
“Since no substantial question of law was formulated at
the time of admission of the appeal on 30.5.2003, hence
having heard the matter partially and during the course of
arguments, in the presence of learned Counsels of both
the parties, this Court confined itself to adjudicate the
following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the alleged transaction of the disputed property
was void ab initio being the violation of Section 7 of Hindu
Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of
Properties) Act, 1962.
2. Whether the property was owned by Dera Baba Dargah
Singh and was of the religious charitable nature. If it is so,
whether it could have been transferred by the self claimed
manager Jaswinder Singh in the nature and manner it
was transferred?
1042 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3. Whether both the lower courts have rightly decreed the
suit on the basis of Khasra, Khatauni and ‘Kisan Bahi’
which were issued by the revenue officials in favour of
the lease holders.”
3. The aforesaid paragraph indicates that at the time of admitting
the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, substantial
questions of law were not formulated. Unless substantial questions
of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal or any
time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard.
The reason is that a second appeal can be finally heard only on
a substantial question of law formulated earlier. In fact, the act of
finally hearing a second appeal without framing any substantial
question of law is itself illegal. There is nothing on record to show
that the High Court formulated the substantial questions of law and
gave an opportunity to the parties to argue on the basis of those
substantial questions of law. All that the High Court says is the
Court has confined itself to three substantial questions of law. The
High Court did not put the rival Advocates to the notice before the
commencement of hearing that it was proposing to hear the appeal
on specific substantial questions of law. The High Court could have
framed substantial questions of law and heard the appeal after few
days so that the Advocates had a notice that the appeal will be heard
on specific substantial questions of law.
4. Therefore, the procedure followed by the High Court is completely
illegal and contrary to Section 100 of the CPC. Only on this ground,
we set aside the impugned judgment dated 13th November, 2017 and
restore Second Appeal Nos.34/2003 and 48/2003 to the file of the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. All contentions of the parties
on merits of the Second Appeals are kept open.
5. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar
(Judicial) of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Registrar (Judicial)
of the High Court shall list the restored Second Appeals before the
roster Bench on 27th August, 2024. The parties, who are appearing
today, shall be under an obligation to appear before the High Court
on that date. The High Court need not issue a notice to those parties.
6. If the High Court wants to frame substantial questions of law as
indicated in the impugned judgment or if the High Court desires
to frame additional substantial questions of law, it is open for the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1043
Nek Pal & Ors. v. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
High Court to do so. After completing the said exercise, the High
Court shall fix a date for hearing of the Second Appeals taking into
consideration the fact that the Second Appeals are 21 years old.
7. We also clarify that till the date of the impugned judgment if any
interim relief was operative in the restored Second Appeals, the
same shall continue to operate.
8. The Civil Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
9. Pending applications, including the application for impleadment,
stand disposed of accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Senior Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Formulation of question of law under Section 100 CPC"Sign in to search