Summary
The Supreme Court remitted a second appeal after the High Court framed substantial questions of law, heard them immediately and reversed concurrent specific-performance findings without adequate opportunity or the trial record. Parties must have sufficient time to meet the questions, and exceptional interference with facts requires examination of the evidence underlying them. The underlying entitlement to specific performance was left for fresh consideration.
Issues
- Whether framing and immediately deciding substantial questions afforded adequate hearing under Section 100.
- Whether concurrent findings of readiness and willingness could be reversed without examining the trial record.
Provisions considered
- Section 100, including subsection (5) and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Second-appellate jurisdiction requires framed substantial questions and meaningful opportunity to address them. Exceptional interference with facts must follow scrutiny of the relevant trial evidence, not merely submissions asserting perversity. (¶¶ 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 15, 16, 17.1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27.1, 27.2)
Held
- Substantial questions of law ordinarily must be framed at admission and answered with reasons after adequate opportunity for argument. Additional, altered or deleted questions also require a hearing and compliance with the statutory safeguards; formulation cannot become a formality immediately preceding disposal without preparation time. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.4, 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15, 16, 16.1, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27.1)
- The High Court is not a third fact-finding court and cannot reverse concurrent findings merely because another view is possible. Exceptional grounds include ignored material evidence, absence of supporting evidence, legally erroneous inferences and wrongly cast burdens, subject to the substantial-question requirement. (¶¶ 16.5, 17, 17.1, 17.2)
- The High Court reversed readiness-and-willingness findings without identifying a sufficient exceptional ground and without examining the underlying trial evidence. Before overturning such findings for perversity, it had to call for the record or peruse it if already available; counsel’s assertion of perversity was insufficient. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27.2)
- Framing the questions and disposing of the second appeal immediately on the second hearing date did not provide the requisite opportunity. Fresh consideration in accordance with the statutory process was necessary, rather than a final decision by the Supreme Court on specific performance. (¶¶ 3, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27.1, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court judgment dated 30 September 2022 set aside and second appeal restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Pending applications disposed of.