Summary
Concurrent factual findings do not automatically foreclose a second appeal where a substantial question of law arises from perversity, disregard of pleadings, absence or misreading of evidence, or statutory error. The Court remitted mining-injunction appeals because the High Court had failed to frame and determine questions concerning land classification, statutory compliance, lease validity and maintainability. No view on the merits was expressed.
Issues
- Whether concurrent findings alone justified rejection of the State’s second appeals.
- Whether substantial legal questions concerning the mining injunction required examination.
Held
- Concurrent factual findings usually bind the second appellate court, but a demonstrated finding outside the pleadings, unsupported by evidence, founded on misreading material documents, contrary to law or beyond reasonable judicial assessment can raise a substantial question of law. (¶ 16–22)
- The case required examination of forest or revenue classification, compliance with the respective statutory regimes, legality of the mining lease, any express or implied bar to suit, and the evidentiary basis for the requested injunction. The High Court should have framed appropriate substantial questions and decided them. (¶ 23–33)
- The remand carried no opinion on merits. The appeals did not abate on the plaintiff’s death in these connected proceedings because his wife, a legal representative, was already on record in the jointly heard matters; remaining substitution steps could be taken after remand. (¶ 34–36)
- The High Court was requested to expedite hearing, preferably within six months. (¶ 37)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside and second appeals remanded for fresh decision after framing appropriate substantial questions of law. Substitution amendments permitted; hearing requested preferably within six months.