LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vs Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 846Decided 21 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6070 of 2023
B.R. Gavai · Sanjay Karol

Background

The appellant (plaintiff) had agreed to buy 3 acres of land from the respondent for Rs 6,60,000, obtained the required government permission for the transfer, and issued notices asking the sellers to complete the sale deed, but the sellers evaded execution, leading the buyer to sue for specific performance. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in the buyer's favour, concurrently finding that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, in a second appeal, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) (hearing the matter for the first time only a day after issuing notice, without calling for the trial court's record) reversed these concurrent factual findings and dismissed the suit, holding the earlier findings reflected a "complete misapplication of law."

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. It laid down that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC must strictly follow a "substantial question of law" framework: such questions must ordinarily be framed at admission, parties must be given adequate time and opportunity to argue on them, and any new or altered questions raised later require a further hearing before decision. Because the High Court decided the entire appeal on the very next day after admission, without giving the parties proper time to address the substantial questions and without calling for or examining the trial court's actual evidence, it violated the settled procedure. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts cannot be overturned in a second appeal merely because a different view is possible. They can only be disturbed in narrow situations such as perversity, ignored evidence, or no evidence at all, and even then, the High Court must examine the actual trial record before doing so.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court hearing a "second appeal" cannot simply re-weigh the evidence and reverse the concurrent factual findings of two lower courts on its own impression. It must properly frame legal questions, give both sides real time to argue them, and actually examine the trial record before disturbing settled facts; rushing this process makes the judgment legally unsustainable.

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

More rulings in Civil Procedure

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
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case