Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. Etc., has held that the high court, while hearing a second appeal, has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the trial court, especially when no party to the appeal raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the high court as to why the remand of the case to the trial court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. In the instant case, the High Court, setting aside the judgment/decree of the courts below, had remanded the cases to the trial court for fresh trial on merits by permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, to frame additional issues and to adduce the evidence. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre observed that no party to the appeals complained at any stage of the proceedings that the trial in the suits was unsatisfactory which caused prejudice to them requiring remand of the cases to...

The Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. Etc., has held that the high court, while hearing a second appeal, has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the trial court, especially when no party to the appeal raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the high court as to why the remand of the case to the trial court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. In the instant case, the High Court, setting aside the judgment/decree of the courts below, had remanded the cases to the trial court for fresh trial on merits by permitting the parties to amend the pleadings, to frame additional issues and to adduce the evidence. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre observed that no party to the appeals complained at any stage of the proceedings that the trial in the suits was unsatisfactory which caused prejudice to them requiring remand of the cases ...

Supreme Court in Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt has held that, solely because the Court has the jurisdiction to pass an ex parte interim order, it does not empower it not to formulate the substantial question of law for the purpose of admission, defer the date of admission and pass an order of stay or grant an interim relief. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh dismissed an appeal against Karnataka High Court order vacating its own interim stay order in a second Appeal. The Court observed that appeal under Section 100 CPC is required to be admitted only on substantial question/questions of law and it cannot be formal admission like an appeal under Section 96 CPC. The Bench observed that for passing an ex parte order the Court has to keep in mind the postulates provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Order XLI and it is obligated to keep in view the language employed under Section 100 CPC. The Court further said “It is because formulation...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015 DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S) The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of Munsiff, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, reads as follows: Whether the tenant has carried out permanent construction on the plot thereby causing a permanent change in the identity of the plot against the terms of the rent agreement? Having analysed and appreciated the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and also DWs- 1 to 4, the trial court came to ...