9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of a second appeal where the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal stating that no substantial question of law arose, despite having earlier considered certain questions as substantial. Summary: The Supreme Court granted leave for the appeal, which arose from a second appeal. The learned Single Judge initially admitted the second appeal for decision on substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal. However, in the subsequent order, the Single Judge dismissed the appeal stating that no substantial question of law arose. The Court found it contradictory that the Single Judge had earlier considered certain questions as substantial. The respondents referred to Section 100(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing them to argue that the case does not involve such questions. The Court noted that the order should have indicated why the questions were found to be not questions of law at the final hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the order under challenge and restored the second appeal to the High Court for a hearing on merits, in accordance with Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
