NEK PAL & ORS. versus NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1040, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1040 : 2024 INSC 574
Nek Pal & Ors. 
v. 
Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8038-8039 of 2024)
26 July 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether substantial questions of law are required to be formulated at 
the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or at any time subsequent thereto.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Substantial 
question of law:
Held: Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the 
time of admission of the appeal, or any time subsequent thereto, 
a second appeal cannot be finally heard – The reason is that a 
second appeal can be heard only on a substantial question of law 
formulated earlier – The act of finally hearing a second appeal without 
framing any substantial question of law is itself illegal – The High  
Court could have framed substantial questions of law, and heard the 
appeal after a few days, so that the Advocates had notice that the 
appeal will be heard on specific substantial questions of law. [Para 3]
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Formulation of question of law under Section 100 CPC; Substantial 
question of law for second appeal; Second Appeal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8038-8039 of 
2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2017 of the High Court of 
Uttarakhand at Nainital in SA No. 34 and 48 of 2003
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1041
Nek Pal & Ors. v. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Kamaljeet Singh, Sumit Bansal, Udaibir 
Singh Khochar, Abhishek Gupta, Ms. Tulna Rampal, Ananta Prasad 
Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Raju Sonkar, Mrs. Priti Rashmi, 
Ms. Priya Rastogi, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Sunil Prakash Sharma, 
Kumar Deepraj, Ms. Aditi Lekhi, Vinay Garg, Ms. Neetu Rawat, 
Upendra Mishra, Vikas Mehta, Mrs. Shashi Kapila, Ankit Vashisht, 
Pavesh, Shrivandit Mishra, Suraj, Sidharth Yadav, M/s. Anuradha & 
Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
Our attention is invited to the impugned judgment of the High Court in 
a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908 (for short, “the CPC”). Following is the relevant part of the 
impugned judgment:
“Since no substantial question of law was formulated at 
the time of admission of the appeal on 30.5.2003, hence 
having heard the matter partially and during the course of 
arguments, in the presence of learned Counsels of both 
the parties, this Court confined itself to adjudicate the 
following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the alleged transaction of the disputed property 
was void ab initio being the violation of Section 7 of Hindu 
Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of 
Properties) Act, 1962.
2. Whether the property was
owned by Dera Baba Dargah 
Singh and was of the religious charitable nature. If it is so, 
whether it could have been transferred by the self claimed 
manager Jaswinder Singh in the nature and manner it 
was transferred?
1042
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3. Whether both the lower courts have rightly decreed the 
suit on the basis of Khasra, Khatauni and ‘Kisan Bahi’ 
which were issued by the revenue officials in favour of 
the lease holders.”
3.	
The aforesaid paragraph indicates that at the time of admitting 
the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, substantial 
questions of law were not formulated. Unless substantial questions 
of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal or any 
time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard. 
The reason is that a second appeal can be finally heard only on 
a substantial question of law formulated earlier. In fact, the act of 
finally hearing a second appeal without framing any substantial 
question of law is itself illegal. There is nothing on record to show 
that the High Court formulated the substantial questions of law and 
gave an opportunity to the parties to argue on the basis of those 
substantial questions of law. All that the High Court says is the 
Court has confined itself to three substantial questions of law. The 
High Court did not put the rival Advocates to the notice before the 
commencement of hearing that it was proposing to hear the appeal 
on specific substantial questions of law. The High Court could have 
framed substantial questions of law and heard the appeal after few 
days so that the Advocates had a notice that the appeal will be heard 
on specific substantial questions
of law.
4.	
Therefore, the procedure followed by the High Court is completely 
illegal and contrary to Section 100 of the CPC. Only on this ground, 
we set aside the impugned judgment dated 13th November, 2017 and 
restore Second Appeal Nos.34/2003 and 48/2003 to the file of the 
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. All contentions of the parties 
on merits of the Second Appeals are kept open.
5.	
A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar 
(Judicial) of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Registrar (Judicial) 
of the High Court shall list the restored Second Appeals before the 
roster Bench on 27th August, 2024. The parties, who are appearing 
today, shall be under an obligation to appear before the High Court 
on that date. The High Court need not issue a notice to those parties.
6.	
If the High Court wants to frame substantial questions of law as 
indicated in the impugned judgment or if the High Court desires 
to frame additional substantial questions of law, it is open for the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1043
Nek Pal & Ors. v. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors.
High Court to do so. After completing the said exercise, the High 
Court shall fix a date for hearing of the Second Appeals taking into 
consideration the fact that the Second Appeals are 21 years old.
7.	
We also clarify that till the date of the impugned judgment if any 
interim relief was operative in the restored Second Appeals, the 
same shall continue to operate.
8.	
The Civil Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
9.	
Pending applications, including the application for impleadment, 
stand disposed of accordingly.
Result of the case: Appeals partly allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor  
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Senior Adv.)