Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a second-appeal judgment for non-compliance with Section 100 CPC. The High Court had failed to answer the six substantial questions framed at admission and decided the appeal on two additional questions introduced only in its judgment. Although additional questions may be framed for recorded reasons at the hearing, parties must have an opportunity to address them. The matter was remitted for fresh, expedited decision without any view on the property dispute’s merits.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could decide a second appeal on additional substantial questions formulated only in the final judgment.
- What procedure and hearing safeguards govern additional questions under Section 100 CPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, particularly subsection (5) and its proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The appeal must be heard on formulated substantial questions. Additional questions must arise in the appeal, be supported by recorded reasons and be formulated at the hearing so that parties can address them. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- The High Court was required to decide the six substantial questions formulated at admission. Leaving them unanswered and deciding on two different questions was a jurisdictional error. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The power to formulate additional substantial questions is conditional: they must arise in the appeal, reasons must be assigned and formulation must occur at the hearing. Introducing them only in the judgment denied the parties an opportunity to address the decisive issues. (¶¶ 15, 23, 24, 25)
- The Supreme Court declined to uphold the result on merits because a fresh hearing was required. It expressed no opinion on the underlying property, jurisdiction or limitation issues. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside; second appeal remanded for fresh, expedited decision on merits in accordance with law, without influence from the Supreme Court’s observations.