Summary
The Court upheld dismissal of a second appeal without formulation of a substantial question of law because none arose. The suit was for a possessory injunction and identification of the disputed land, within civil jurisdiction; it was not a revenue-estate boundary dispute excluding that jurisdiction. The proposed additional revenue documents were irrelevant to the appellant’s pleaded claim and did not warrant interference.
Issues
- Whether every dismissal of a second appeal requires formulation of a substantial question of law.
- Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction or the proposed additional evidence required interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Distinguished dismissal where no substantial question of law arises from hearing and reversal requiring formulation of such a question. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Applied civil courts’ plenary jurisdiction absent express or implied exclusion to the possessory injunction dispute. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rejected the proposed additional revenue evidence as irrelevant to the appellant’s pleaded claim and the controversy tried. (¶¶ 11, 17)
Held
- The High Court need formulate a substantial question of law only when satisfied that one arises. It may dismiss a second appeal without formulation when none exists. Reversal of the lower courts’ findings, however, requires compliance with Section 100, including formulation and opportunity of hearing. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The legal jurisdiction objection could be considered when hearing the whole first appeal; failure to decide it earlier caused no demonstrated prejudice here. The trial court had not treated it as a preliminary issue. (¶ 16)
- The appellant claimed land in Village Shakarpur, while the additional documents related to Village Basai Darapur, where he admitted no claim. The parties understood the competing land-identification issues and had led evidence; the proposed documents were irrelevant to his pleaded case. (¶¶ 11, 17)
- The suit sought an injunction based on possession and required identification of the parties’ land. It did not raise the revenue-administration matters identified in the statutory exclusion or an inter-estate boundary dispute of the asserted kind. There was no prescribed revenue mechanism for the requested possessory injunction and no express or implied civil-jurisdiction bar. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court’s dismissal of the second appeal and the concurrent injunction findings stood. Pending applications disposed of.