Summary
The High Court admitted a second appeal without formulating substantial questions of law, heard arguments and first stated such questions in its judgment. The Supreme Court held that this denied the parties a proper opportunity to address the questions governing the hearing. It set aside the decision and remanded the appeal for rehearing, leaving the merits and the effect of a respondent’s death to the High Court.
Issues
- Whether substantial questions of law in a second appeal may first be formulated in the judgment after arguments have concluded.
Provisions considered
- Section 100(3)–(5) and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Substantial questions must be formulated before the hearing on them. Additional questions at final hearing require recorded reasons and a subsequent opportunity for the parties to address them. (¶ 5–9)
Held
- Admission should normally specify the substantial questions of law, even when the High Court adopts those stated in the memorandum. Without a substantial question the second appeal must be dismissed at the threshold. (¶ 6–7)
- The hearing must address formulated questions and preserve the respondent’s right to dispute whether they arise or are substantial. Additional questions may be formulated at final hearing with recorded reasons, but the parties must then be heard on them; formulation only in the judgment is erroneous. (¶ 8–10)
- The matter was remanded without any opinion on the merits. The High Court could reframe questions after hearing the parties, should give the old appeal priority, and must determine the effect of respondent no. 2’s death and absence of substitution. (¶¶ 1, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside and second appeal remanded for hearing on formulated substantial questions of law, with priority as a 1990 appeal. Merits and the effect of respondent no. 2’s death left to the High Court.