Koppi Setty v. Ratnam v. Pamarti Venka 2007
Introduction
- This case is mainly concern to the newly (amended) Section 100 of CPC which is related to second appeal in the high court. In this case we will observe the Law Commission Report of 1973 on necessity of appeal and 2nd appeal.
Facts
The appealant filed a Special Leave Petition under 'Article 136 of the Constitution contending that the order of the High Court is void as it was made in a second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1973 without formulating any question of law.
Issue
- Whether the high court can hear second appeal without finding substantial question of law?
SC Observations
- Formulation of substantial question is mandatory.
- Section 100 of CPC, 1908 amended by the recommendation of law commission, 1973 which stated 'Any rational system of law should have only hearing on question of fact, one by trial court and the other by its appellate court only.
- 'Doctrine of finality' prohibits subsequent appeal except when 2nd appeal is on question of law.
- An unqualified right of first appeal may be necessary for the satisfaction of a defeated litigant but a wide right of 2nd appeal is more luxury which can be allowed only on the question of law.
- There are several cases remained without decision in the HC, one of the reason is 2nd appeal are admitted without serious security of law.
- As per section 100 of CPC :
- An appeal shall lie to the HC against the decree of any court subordinate to it, if the HC is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
- An appeal may lie from an appellate court under this section where judgment has been given ex-parte.
- The memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law.
Judgment
- Court set aside the decision of the High Court and told to not accept any appeal without satisfaction of the existence of the question of law.
