"Cannot Bring Everything To Supreme Court; There Has To Be A Cap, Lest A Collapsing System Collapse Completely": Justice SK Kaul

The bench of Justices Kaul and Hemant Gupta was transversing through its board with 11 miscellaneous matters on it, at-least 4 SLPs of which, in the opinion of the Court, did not warrant its interference.

"There has to be a cap on the number of tiers of scrutiny! A matter must rest somewhere!", observed Justice Kaul.

The first item was a challenge to a 2019 decision of the Allahabad High Court, sitting in a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, which, in turn, arose from a 1975 judgment passed by a IIIrd Additional District Judge, whereby the civil appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court (being the Ist Additional Munsif) was set aside. The High Court had confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court that the claim of the appellants of dedication of the land in dispute by the erstwhile Zamindar as Kabristan to be used by Muslims cannot be accepted.

"The first appellate court is final on facts. And the second appellate court is final on the law", reiterated Justice Kaul, dismissing the SLP.

The second item happened to be an SLP impugning a 2019 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirming, in second appeal, the judgment of the 2nd ADJ in a suit for declaration. The first appellate court had also confirmed the decree of the trial court, being the Court of First Civil Judge Class 1.

"There are 3 concurrent findings! You could not persuade 3 courts and now you are trying to convince the fourth court?", commented Justice Kaul, dismissing the SLP.

Another item on the board was an SLP against a March, 2021 order of the Bombay High Court refusing the prayer for transfer of matrimonial proceedings moved by the Applicant/husband on the ground of inconvenience. "(The relief) cannot be granted as no hardship will be caused to him. Apart from above, distance between two Courts where the proceedings are sought to be transferred is very meager i.e. within the same District. No case of transfer is made out", the High Court had held.

"The High Court, a 226 court, is not good enough within a state? The Supreme Court has to decide where a case is to be transferred?", asked Justice Kaul. The bench dismissed the SLP even as the petitioner's counsel sought to make a case that the matter is one of public policy and involves a legal question pertaining to section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act.