Meaning of Substantial Question of Law

The Court took note of the concurring findings of subsequent courts and stated: “The extent of the High Court`s interference in the second appeal under Article 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure exists only if the Court considers that the appeal constitutes an important question of law.” It was also held that there was no substantive point of law in the case. Both courts rendered judgment in favour of the plaintiff after reviewing all the evidence and closing arguments. The appeal was therefore dismissed. [Satyapal Kashyap v. P.P.S. Chhatwal, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1561, decision rendered 19-09-2019] To be a question of law “involved in the case”, the basis must first be established in the pleadings, and the issue must flow from the solid findings of fact reached by the courts, and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a fair and appropriate decision of the case. “Just as this court has always disapproved of the practice of dismissing a second appeal with a non-speech order stating only that the case did not raise a substantive point of law, the High Court cannot allow a second appeal without discussing the question of law, which the High Court has done.” The Supreme Court considered both the questions raised by the High Court and the questions raised by the High Court and held that none of the issues raised above constituted substantive questions of law since there was no dispute as to the interpretation of a legal effect of a document or misapplication of the law. This was not a contentious issue as it is already covered by precedents or established legislation. Consequently, the High Court was wrong to question the findings of the First Court of Appeal. The Court held that a comparative interpretation of p.

100 and Order 43 R. 1 (u) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, p. 100 CCP, makes it very clear that the second appeal against an appeal and judgment would be made to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that it is an important question of law. He also pointed out that Article 100 § 3 again clarifies that the notice of appeal must contain the question of law in question separately and that paragraph 4 also requires the High Court to ascertain that this is an important point of law, whereas Article 1(u) of Order 43 of the CCP is silent on the existence and formulation of an important point of law. “The formulation of a substantive question of law or its reformulation within the meaning of the reservation arises only if it is a question of law and not in the absence of a question of law on the merits.” However, the Court concluded that such essential questions of law did not arise for consideration. The question of jurisdiction is not a question of fact, but a question of law. Therefore, it could very well be decided by the first court of appeal while it hears the appeal as a whole. High Court of Punjab and Haryana: Sudip Ahluwalia, J. settled the matter and informed the parties that disputed land could not be used by any of them, and also stated that a second regular appeal could be accepted without a substantive point of law. Section 100 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 provides that “any decision on appeal by a court subordinate to the High Court may be appealed to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case concerns a question of law on the merits”. As stated above, the right to a second complaint is a legal right and the conditions set out in Article 100 must be met to exercise this right. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to bring a second appeal to the High Court, since the notice of appeal does not contain any specific substantive law.

The Court finally held that, as in the present case, it should have exercised the powers provided for in Article 25 of Order 41 CCP; the Court held that a question of fact had to be resolved, including interference and possession by the plaintiffs. It also found that the next court had erred in referring the case back to the Court of First Instance in its entirety and allowed the appeal. [Gooha v. Uma Devi, 2017 Online SCC MP 1357, decision rendered 09.11.2017] If this additional burden of establishing the existence of a substantive question of law were transferred to the appellants, the element of judicial satisfaction would be eliminated; indeed, the High Court need only formulate literally the question referred to in the notice of appeal. As a result, the process of “formulating” a substantive question of law becomes obsolete, as it is not necessary to apply the judicial spirit of the High Court to ensure that the issue referred to in the memorandum is a “substantive” issue and a matter “involved in the dispute between the parties”. The presumption and exercise of jurisdiction that is not in the possession of the High Courts thus creates confusion in litigants` minds as to the extent of jurisdiction of secondary appeals. As a result, it was found that the litigants “mention anything and everything as an essential point of law [in the note of appeal] in order to have their case admitted to the High Court for the second appeal”, which consequently burdens the courts with several frivolous cases. In this case, the respondent brought an action before the trial court for the removal of the temporary sheet metal sheds and other obstacles allegedly erected by the applicant (defendant in the action) on land that was a large public lot on the west side of the appellant`s house. The disputed property was located in an area called Madhu Colony, which was separate from the Sharma settlement where the defendant and plaintiff`s house was located. The obstructions on this property caused a barrier to entry and exit from the house by the defendant (plaintiff in the claim). The trial court granted the defendant an interim injunction. The applicant challenged that decision before the District Court, who dismissed his appeal.

Subsequently, the present appeal was brought and decided in 2010 by a coordinated chamber of that court, concluding that the plaintiff-defendant did not have the right to enter and leave his home by the disputed road, so that the conclusion of the lower courts was set aside in that regard. However, the judgment of subsequent courts, by which the plaintiff-defendant was ordered to eliminate interference on the disputed road, was upheld. The defendant, aggrieved by this decision, filed an application for special leave (SLP) with the Supreme Court and the case was referred back to that court, which was ordered to consider whether a substantive question of law was raised in the second appeal and then to retry the parties. The consideration of a second appeal without raising a question of law on the merits is inappropriate and the judgment is set aside as manifestly unlawful. There have also been cases where orders of the High Court have been set aside because the High Courts dismissed a second appeal on the ground that there was no substantive point of law, when in fact it was a manifestly substantial point of law in the case. In addition, the High Courts must ensure that the case is not a mere question of law but an essential question of law. They must therefore satisfy that criterion in order to have jurisdiction, under Paragraph 100 of the ZPO, to hear and determine a second action. A recent decision of the Delhi Supreme Court in the Pyramid IT Consulting case[6] is an exception. Having regard to the specific facts of the case, the Court has held that, even when it comes to choosing comparable subject-matter, a `question of substantial law` arises. Admittedly, the question of “what constitutes an essential legal question” is complex.