In a recent judgment dated September 21, 2023, the Supreme Court emphasized the procedural importance of framing substantial questions of law at the admission stage during Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The apex court stated that if these questions are formulated later, the concerned parties must be granted ample time to address them before a decision is made.
The directive came from a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol. They were reviewing an appeal against an order from the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. After the High Court framed substantial questions of law, it proceeded to hear the appeal on the same day, overturning the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance.
The Supreme Court expressed its concerns over the hasty disposal of the appeal, stating,
“The haste with which the Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated. The governing statute lays considerable emphasis on hearing the parties on all questions and the same is reflected in various pronouncements of this Court. The approach adopted by a Court in disposing of such appeals must abide by the same.”
The Court further elaborated on the step-by-step progression of a second appeal, which involves the framing of substantial questions at the admission stage, followed by a hearing, and then a reasoned judgment. In the case under review, the Court observed that these procedural steps were not followed correctly.
Highlighting the significance of framing substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court remarked,
“A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided.”
The Court also emphasized that High Courts should typically refrain from interfering with factual findings in Second Appeals. However, if there are compelling legal reasons to do so, the Court may intervene, but only after thoroughly reviewing the Trial Court’s records. The Supreme Court observed that in the case at hand, the High Court had reversed concurrent factual findings without identifying any exceptional circumstances or errors in the lower courts’ findings.
The apex court concluded by setting aside the High Court’s judgment in the Second Appeal and remanding the case back to the High Court for a fresh review.
The case in question is titled “Suresh Lataruji Ramteke V. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, Civil Appeal No. 6070 Of 2023.”
