LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sudam Kisan Gavane (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Manik Ananta Shikketod (D) By LRs.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 977Decided 29 Aug 2019
Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2010
Justice Deepak Gupta · Justice Aniruddha Bose

Background

A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, originally filed in 1990, was admitted by the High Court without the Court framing any specific "substantial question of law" at the admission stage, as the law requires. Arguments were heard and judgment reserved in 2009, and only when the High Court finally delivered its judgment did it mention certain substantial questions of law, meaning those questions were effectively framed for the first time at the judgment-writing stage, after the hearing was already over. The losing party appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing this procedure was unfair since the parties never knew in advance which legal questions the High Court was actually going to decide.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 100 CPC requires the High Court to formulate the substantial question(s) of law before hearing the appeal on merits, so the parties and their counsel know in advance what they must argue and can properly assist the Court; only in limited circumstances can new questions be framed later, but even then with reasons recorded and after hearing the parties. Because the High Court here admitted the appeal without framing questions and only articulated them inside the final judgment itself, the Court held this procedure was legally erroneous and unfair to the parties. Without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying property dispute, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment on this short procedural ground, allowed the appeal, and remanded the second appeal back to the High Court with directions to properly frame the questions of law after hearing the parties and decide the matter afresh on a priority basis.

Lesson Learnt

In a second appeal, the High Court must clearly frame the substantial question(s) of law at the time of admitting the appeal (or formally before final hearing with reasons), not spring them for the first time inside the judgment: litigants are entitled to know in advance exactly what legal issues they need to argue.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court of India

Haramani Sahoo & Ors. v. Lalita Nayak & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants had exercised due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, since the relevant facts about the later sale only came to their knowledge during the suit. While acknowledging the considerable delay in seeking the amendment and the inconvenience this could cause the other side, the Court set aside the trial court's and High Court's orders refusing the amendment, and allowed it subject to the appellants paying Rs. 25,000 in costs to the contesting respondents. All underlying questions of limitation, maintainability, and the merits of the parties' claims were left open for the trial court to decide.

Decided 12 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case