KANAHAIYALAL Vs. ANUPKUMAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
November 27,2002
KANAHAIYALAL
Appellant
VERSUS
ANUPKUMAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ISHWAR DASS JAIN DEAD THR LRS VS. SOHAN LAL [REFERRED]BHAGWANDAS FATECHAND DASWANI VS. HPA INTERNATIONAL [REFERRED]
ROOP SINGH DEAD VS. RAM SINGH DEAD [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMKISHAN GURU RAGHUNATHDASJI VS. RAMAVTAR BANSRAJ SINGH [LAWS(GJH)-2005-9-54] [REFERRED TO]SIRI KISHAN VS. SANWAL [LAWS(P&H)-2004-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
BWL LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-229] [REFERRED TO]
GURNAM SINGH VS. CHARANJIV BHARDWAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-222] [REFERRED TO]
SUBE SINGH VS. BISHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. GURMEJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2007-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER VS. MOORTI SHRI RADHA KRISHAN JI [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND VS. THE MARKET COMMITTEE, TARAORI, TEHSIL NILOKHERI, DISTRICT KARNAL [LAWS(P&H)-2007-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN TANEJA VS. RAKESH TANEJA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-259] [REFERRED TO]
KETKI RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LTD. VS. ASHOK P. ARBAT [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
Ravi Construction Co. VS. Somvanshi Arya Kshatriya Samaj [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
C.A. Sulaiman VS. State Bank of Travancore, Alwayee [LAWS(MPH)-2006-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
NIYAMATHULLAH VS. JAKLUL BATCHA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-685] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. BAL KRISHAN [LAWS(SC)-2005-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
B C SHIVASHANKARA VS. B R NAGARAJ [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH MANSUKHLAL CHHAGANIAL VS. GOHIL AMARSING GOVINDBHAI [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-66] [REFERRED TO]
G SUSHEELA VS. M RAJYALAKSHMI [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN DASS VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SUNNER KALAN [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
C A SULAIMAN VS. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
JAWALA SINGH VS. JAGAT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI CONSTRUCTIONS CO VS. SOMVANSHI ARYA KSHATRIYA SAMAJ [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHILAKAMARTHI MOHANA RAO VS. PATIBANDA SOMA SUNDARA RAO [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
RABI RANJAN GUPTA D VS. JAYATI ROY [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
NUNE PRASAD VS. NUNE RAMAKRISNA [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
K K KANNAN VS. KOOLIVATHUKKAL KARIKKAN MANDI [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
SASIKUMAR VS. KUNNATH CHELLAPPAN NAIR [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
CHADAT SINGH VS. BAHADUR RAMA [LAWS(SC)-2004-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
TOWN PLANNING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. RAJAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2008-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAKHI DEVI VS. CHHATRA DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
MATHAKALA KRISHNAIAH VS. V RAJAGOPAL [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR VS. LAKHMI [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
PATRICK JJ SALDANHA VS. ANTONY M SALDANHA [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR DAYAL MANGALA VS. HARISH CHAND [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-182] [REFERRED TO]
V RAMASWAMY VS. RAMACHANDRAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-199] [REFERRED TO]
PEAK CHEMICAL CORPORATION INC VS. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
OIL INDIA LIMITED VS. ESSAR OIL LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SEETHA MINOR [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-311] [REFERRED TO]
TELESTAR TRAVELS PVT. LTD VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRABHATAI WD/O SHANKARRAO BODHANKAR VS. M/S. CHIMOTE & SONS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-115] [REFERRED TO]
S.BALAKRISHNAN VS. VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-302] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR KAUR VS. CHHINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2004-1-127] [REFERRED]
K. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. INDIAN BANK ERA PURAM BRANCH NO. 9 FIRST TRUST LINK ST MANDAVELLIPAKKAM CHENNAI 28 & ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-315] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA GUPTA VS. A.K.GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERZBANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-157] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)The impugned judgments were passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in second appeals reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Though the High Court elaborately considered the contentions and the evidence placed on record, the impugned judgments do not reflect or indicate as to what was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.)The learned senior counsel for the respondents, in support of the impugned judgment, contended that though substantial question of law was not specifically stated in the impugned judgment, it can be made out from the very judgment that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court were perverse and perversity itself was a substantial question of law for disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. He also added that in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there is a practice that substantial question of law is separately framed at the time of admission in the order sheet. We may notice one more that that the arguments were heard by the High Court and the appeals were reserved for judgment on 21st November, 1990. The High Court pronounced the impugned judgments as late as on 7th May, 1993 allowing the appeals, interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
(2.)The impugned judgments were passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in second appeals reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Though the High Court elaborately considered the contentions and the evidence placed on record, the impugned judgments do not reflect or indicate as to what was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.)The learned senior counsel for the respondents, in support of the impugned judgment, contended that though substantial question of law was not specifically stated in the impugned judgment, it can be made out from the very judgment that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court were perverse and perversity itself was a substantial question of law for disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. He also added that in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there is a practice that substantial question of law is separately framed at the time of admission in the order sheet. We may notice one more that that the arguments were heard by the High Court and the appeals were reserved for judgment on 21st November, 1990. The High Court pronounced the impugned judgments as late as on 7th May, 1993 allowing the appeals, interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.