KANAHAIYALAL Vs. ANUPKUMAR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Click here to view full 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.