2002 (11) TMI 747 - SC - Indian Laws

What was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Held that - The judgments of the High Court under challenge cannot be sustained as the impugned judgments do not indicate any substantial question of law formulated and that the second appeals were heard on any substantial question of law. This Court has taken the view in cases more than one that in second appeals, substantial question or questions of law must arise for consideration and the appeals are to be heard on the substantial questions of law so formulated. The appeals are allowed. We remit these matters to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the requirement of formulating substantial questions of law in second appeals.
- Examination of the practice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in framing substantial questions of law at the time of admission.
- Consideration of the impact of delay in delivering judgments on the validity of the judgments.

Interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court analyzed the impugned judgments passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in second appeals. The Court noted that the judgments reversed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court without indicating the substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents argued that the perversity of the lower courts' findings constituted a substantial question of law. However, the Court emphasized that in second appeals, substantial questions of law must be formulated and heard accordingly.

Practice of the High Court in Framing Substantial Questions of Law:
The respondents contended that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh follows a practice of separately framing substantial questions of law at the time of admission. Despite this, the Court observed that the impugned judgments did not indicate any formulated substantial question of law. Citing previous judgments, the Court reiterated that the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law and does not extend to interference with pure questions of fact.

Impact of Delay in Delivering Judgments:
Furthermore, the Court addressed the significant delay in pronouncing the impugned judgments, highlighting a case precedent where delay led to setting aside the judgment without delving into the merits of the case. In line with this precedent, the Court set aside the High Court judgments due to the delay in delivery and remitted the matters for fresh disposal within a specified timeframe. The Court stressed the importance of timely judgment delivery to avoid unnecessary speculations and ensure the proper reflection and appreciation of arguments presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments, allowed the appeals, and directed the High Court to dispose of the matters in accordance with law within six months. The Court's decision was based on the lack of formulated substantial questions of law, the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals, and the impact of undue delay in delivering judgments on the validity of the decisions.