Case: Kanailal Vs. Ram Chandra Singh

2. Few relevant facts need mention in brief infra.      3. The appellants herein are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.      4. The respondents filed the civil suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 1991 before the Sub Divisional Court of the Munsif, Jhargram, District Midnapore against the appellants inter alia seeking partition in relation to the suit properties. The appellants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. Parties went to trial on the issues framed for its determination.      5. By judgment/decree dated 26.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondents, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being Title Appeal No. 240 of 1992 before the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore. By judgment/decree dated 28.01.1999, the first Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, 6th Court) allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit.      6. The appellants (defendants), felt aggrieved, filed second appeal being S.A.T. No.1082 of 1999as S.A. No. 740 of 1999) before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by special leave before this Court by the defendants.      7. The impugned order reads as underappeal is summarily dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.      There will be no order as to costs."

Reasoning:
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the second appeal afresh after framing proper substantial questions of law, if found to arise in the case.Mere perusal of the impugned order quoted supra would go to show that the High Court while deciding the appeal neither set out the facts nor the submissions urged by the appellants in support of their appeal and nor given any reason as to why the submissions urged by the appellants have no merit and why the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 100 of the Code.It is clear from mere reading of the Rule 31(a) to (d) that it makes it legally obligatory upon the Appellate Courtand second Appellate Court) as to what should the judgment of the Appellate Court contain.) provides that the judgment must formulate and state the points arising in the case for determination.provides that the Court must give decision on such points and subclause(c) provides that the judgment shall state the reasons for the decision. So far as(d) is concerned, it applies in those cases where the Appellate Court has reversed the decree. In such case, the Court has to specify the relief to which the appellant has become entitled to as a result of the decree having been reversed in appeal at his. While deciding the second appeal which lies only to the High Court, the Court has to further ensure compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code in addition to the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code set out above.In other words, the High Court while hearing the second appeal at the time of its admission has to first find out whetherthe second appeal involves any substantial question(s) of lawand if the Court finds that the appeal does involve any substantial question(s) of law then such question(s) is/are required to be formulated. The appeal can be then heard finally only on such formulated question(s). (See Santosh Hazari (supra).If however, the Court, at the time of hearing the appeal on the question of admission, comes to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any such question within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code, then it has to pass a reasoned order keeping in view the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 set out above. Indeed, this being the mandatory requirements of law, itsby the Appellate Court render their judgment bad in law.As mentioned above, since the judgment impugned does not satisfy the requirements of either Section 100 or/and Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code, it is legally unsustainable.