Substantial Questions Of Law Not Required To Be Formulated In Second Appeals Arising Out Of States Of Punjab & Haryana : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed, that in second appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule. 

In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing a second appeal had set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below it.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that the case arises out of a dispute in Punjab. Thus it observed that the single Judge sitting in second appellate jurisdiction cannot be faulted for not having framed substantial questions of law under section 100, CPC. Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157, the court said:

"Therefore, the rigors of section 100 do not apply. It has been held by this court that in appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC".

The court added that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court.

"However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone...Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding..", the bench observed while dismissing the appeal.

Case details

Gurbachan Singh (D) vs Gurcharan Singh(D) | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562 | 2023 INSC 639 

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918 ; Section 41- In appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC - Referred to Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157. (Para 8,9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 100 - The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC - Referred to Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala (2020) 19 SCC 57 - Ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone - Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding. (Para

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment