2007 (9) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether he Second Appeal was allowed without formulating any substantial question of law which is mandatory in law?

Summary

Issues:
- Appellants challenging the legality of a judgment allowing Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law.

Analysis:
1. The appeal questions the legality of a judgment allowing a Second Appeal without formulating a substantial question of law, as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The appellants contend that the Second Appeal was allowed without adhering to the mandatory requirement of formulating a substantial question of law.

2. The requirement post-amendment is that a second appeal can only be filed if a substantial question of law is involved. The High Court must precisely state the substantial question of law, satisfy itself of its existence, and formulate it for the appeal. The High Court is empowered to hear the appeal on a substantial point of law, even if not initially formulated, to prevent injustice to litigants due to inadvertent omissions.

3. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and must adhere to the conditions specified in the relevant section. The Court clarifies that a substantial question of law must be distinguished from a substantial question of fact, as outlined in previous judgments.

4. The Court reiterates that the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact by the lower appellate court unless there are errors contrary to law or based on inadmissible evidence. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court's role is not to reevaluate findings of fact but to ensure legal correctness in the application of principles.

5. The phrase "substantial question of law" is analyzed, emphasizing that it need not be of general importance but must have real significance in the case. The Court refers to previous judgments to define what constitutes a substantial question of law, emphasizing its importance and impact on the parties' rights.

6. The Court provides a comprehensive test to determine if a question of law is substantial, highlighting the need for debate, lack of settled law, and material impact on the case's outcome. The judgment also outlines principles relevant to the case, distinguishing between questions of fact and questions of law.

7. Despite previous decisions emphasizing the need to formulate substantial questions of law, the Court notes a recurring failure to follow this mandatory requirement. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court to ensure compliance with the formulation of substantial questions of law before deciding the appeal.

8. The appeal is allowed, with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring a just and lawful process in legal proceedings.