Kirodi (Since Deceased) Through His LR v. Ram Parkash & Ors.
Background
The appellant's regular second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had been decided without the High Court framing a "substantial question of law," which Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) normally requires. Counsel for the appellant argued, relying on two prior Supreme Court decisions (Chand Kaur v. Mehar Kaur and Surat Singh v. Siri Bhagwan), that no such question of law needed to be framed in second appeals arising from Punjab and Haryana.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that those two earlier decisions had overlooked a binding Constitution Bench judgment (Pankajakshi v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157), which clarified that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, a pre-Constitution law saved by Article 372(1), continues to apply in Punjab and Haryana and does not require framing of a substantial question of law, overriding Section 100 CPC for that region. Since the two precedents the appellant relied on conflicted with this binding Constitution Bench ruling and had failed to consider it, the Court held they could not be followed. Applying the correct, binding legal position, the Court found no merit in the appellant's argument that the second appeal was invalid for want of a framed question of law, and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A later Supreme Court decision that overlooks a binding Constitution Bench ruling does not displace that ruling: litigants and courts must always check whether a precedent is consistent with the governing Constitution Bench law before relying on it, especially on procedural requirements like appeal admissibility.