The High Court set aside concurrent findings of the courts below under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The same was assailed by the Appellant on the ground that, first, the High Court lacked jurisdiction and second, the High Court was required to formulate a substantial question of law in light of the amended Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was not done in the instant case.
ISSUE
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts under S. 100 of the CPC, and that too without formulating the substantial questions of law which is mandatory under section 100 of the CPC?
HELD
The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the case was remitted back for a de novo (new/fresh) trial in an expeditious manner.
Section 100 of the CPC was amended in 1976 because of the report of the Law Commission on the rationale that, first, litigation of civil cases should have two hearings on the question of facts: one by the trial court, and another by 1st appellate court. Second, there must be a reasonable restraint in searching for absolute truth reconciling it with the doctrine of finality.
Admitting 2nd appeal on the question of law and not on the question of fact is based on 3 reasons:
1) To avoid delay– the unqualified right of the first appeal is a necessity while a wide second appeal might be a luxury,
2) To have uniformity on legal issues across the state for courts below,
3) To facilitate prediction of law.
Now, under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court only has jurisdiction where in a case a substantial question of law is involved and the same is clearly formulated in the Memo of Appeal.
HC must formulate a question of law at the admission stage of appeal and only decide on such questions.
2nd appeal must only be admitted after formulating a substantial question of law.