Summary
Following the Constitution Bench decision in Pankajakshi, the Court rejected the sole objection that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had decided a regular second appeal without framing a substantial question of law. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 continued to govern the appeal and did not impose that requirement. Contrary smaller-Bench decisions rendered without noticing Pankajakshi could not hold the field.
Issues
- Whether failure to frame a substantial question of law invalidated the regular second appeal decision governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918Continues to govern second appeals within its application without requiring formulation of a substantial question of law. (¶ 8–12)
- Section 97(1), Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976Repeals inconsistent State or High Court amendments to the Code itself, not the separate pre-Constitution Punjab Courts Act. (¶¶ 9, 11)
Held
- Pankajakshi established that Section 41 remained in force. The requirement introduced in Section 100 CPC did not displace that provision. (¶ 9–11)
- Section 97(1) concerned amendments or insertions in the Code itself. The pre-Constitution Punjab Courts Act continued under Article 372 rather than being overridden through Article 254 on the reasoning rejected by the Constitution Bench. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- Chand Kaur and Surat Singh, decided without the Constitution Bench ruling being brought to notice and contrary to it, did not hold the field. (¶¶ 5, 12)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The sole challenge based on failure to formulate a substantial question of law was rejected in light of Pankajakshi and the continuing application of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.