Summary
The High Court could not interpret an admitted agreement in a specific-performance dispute while dismissing the second appeal for want of a substantial question of law. Appropriate questions concerning the agreement’s construction and material specific-performance issues required formulation and hearing under Section 100 CPC. The matter was remitted without deciding entitlement to specific performance.
Issues
- Whether dismissal of the second appeal without framing substantial questions of law was justified when interpretation of the admitted agreement was material.
Provisions considered
- Section 100(4) and (5), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court had to formulate the substantial questions arising and hear the appeal on those questions, subject to the statutory proviso. (¶¶ 11–15, 17)
Held
- Interpretation of the admitted agreement’s terms raised a substantial question of law. Questions concerning the true intent and obligations under Clauses 3, 5 and 15 arose in the context of the pleadings and opposing findings of the trial and first appellate courts. (¶ 11–13)
- Appropriate questions could also address issues material to grant or refusal of specific performance, having regard to Section 16, pleadings and the reversing findings. No final determination of those issues was made. (¶¶ 14, 16–17)
- The High Court interpreted the agreement after hearing both sides but nevertheless found no substantial question. That approach effectively treated the matter as a first appeal and failed to comply with Section 100. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside. Matter remanded for admission, formulation of appropriate substantial questions of law and decision on merits according to Section 100, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations on merits.