Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3505 OF 2009
State of Rajasthan & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B.
Civil Regular Second Appeal No.186 of 2007 whereby
the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.07
17:40:02 IST
Reason:
second appeal filed by the appellants herein and
affirmed the order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the
1
first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of
2003.
2. Few facts need mention infra for disposal of this
appeal.
3. The State and its authorities are the appellants
herein. They are the defendants whereas the
respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit out of which
this appeal arises.
4. The respondent claiming to be the Society filed a
civil suit against the State and its authorities in
relation to the suit land. The suit was for grant of relief
of permanent injunction restraining the appellants
(defendants) from interfering in the respondent's
(plaintiff’s) possession over the suit land. It was
contested by the appellants (defendants).
5. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated
26.09.2002 in Civil Suit No.38 of 2000 decreed the
suit and granted permanent injunction to the
2
respondent (plaintiff) and against the appellants
(defendants) in relation to the suit land. The
defendants (State) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal
before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur being
Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003. By Judgment
dated 15.07.2006, the first Appellate Court dismissed
the State's appeal and affirmed the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court giving rise to filing of the
Second appeal by the State before the High Court.
6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the
State's appeal in holding that the appeal does
limine
not involve any substantial question of law and hence
this appeal by special leave by the State in this Court
against the impugned order.
7. None appeared for the parties. We, therefore,
perused the record of the case. Having perused the
record, we are of the view that this appeal has to be
allowed and the case deserves to be remanded to the
3
High Court for deciding the State's second appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law.
8. The need to remand the case to the High Court
for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits has
occasioned because we find that the High Court did
not assign any reasons while dismissing the appeal
and nor discussed the case on facts or in law. This is
clear from the impugned order, which is reproduced
below:
“I have heard learned counsel for the
appellantdefendants and have also gone
through the impugned judgments of the two
courts below.
I find that the courts below have arrived at
the finding after due appreciation of the
evidence led by the parties. There is no
infirmity in the finding of the courts below.
Therefore, there is no substantial question of
law involved in this second appeal.
Hence, this second appeal is dismissed in
limine.”
9. In our considered opinion and as would be clear
from the mere perusal of the order quoted above, the
High Court did not discuss nor dealt with any issues
4
arising in the case nor dealt with any submissions
urged by the appellant (State) with a view to show as
to how and on what basis the findings impugned in
the second appeal were bad in law and why the appeal
did not involve any substantial question(s) of law.
10. This Court cannot countenance such casual
approach of the High Court in disposing of the second
appeal, which does not decide nor deals with any
issue(s) arising in the case.
11. In our view, even the cursory reading of the
judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court would show that the second appeal does involve
substantial question(s) of law and, therefore, the
second appeal should have been admitted for final
hearing by framing proper substantial question(s) of
law arising in the case under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code”) for its final disposal.
5
12. As is clear from the record of the case, the
dispute involved in the second appeal relates to the
State land. The question relating to the title and
possession over the land in question is involved. The
High Court with a view to find out as to who is the
owner of the land and who is in its possession,
whether the plaintiff as claimed was able to prove their
title over the suit land to the exclusion of the rights of
the State and, if so, on what basis and whether his
possession if proved, is legal or not, etc. requires
elaborate discussion. It should have been adjudicated
in the light of legal principle applicable to the case,
pleadings and evidence.
13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the
case needs to be remanded to the High Court for
deciding of the Second Appeal afresh on all such
questions which do arise in the case but were not
decided much less in accordance with law.
6
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order
is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court
for deciding Second Appeal No. 186/2007 afresh on
merits.
15. The High Court will admit the second appeal by
framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in
the case as required under Section 100 of the Code
and then after issuing notice of the appeal alongwith a
copy of substantial question of law framed to the
respondent (plaintiff) will decide the second appeal on
merits by answering the questions framed in
accordance with law.
16. We, however, make it clear that we have not
applied our mind to the merits of the controversy
having formed an opinion to remand the case to the
High Court. The High Court will, therefore, decide the
second appeal uninfluenced by any of our
observations.
7
17. Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High
Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as
possible.
18. Since no one appeared for any of the parties in
this appeal, we request the High Court to issue notice
to the parties for their appearance in the Second
appeal so as to enable the High Court to dispose of the
appeal finally as directed above.
…...…...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
...…...……..............................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2019
8