Whether in the absence of affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing the framed substantial questions of law, the High Court could have proceeded to decide the same in an appeal preferred under section 100 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’), particularly, when the findings of fact rendered by two Courts, were sought to be reversed? (Para 2.1)
Whether in the absence of any trial record or without summoning and perusing the trial record, findings of fact on the issue of plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed, could have been reversed by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under section 100 CPC? (Para 2.2)
Here, the questions of law, were framed on the second date of hearing, the parties were heard right then and there, and the second appeal was disposed of with the judgment being dictated and findings of fact reversed. That, as the above discussion points out, is not in consonance with the manner set out for the disposal of a second appeal. (Para 23)
The impugned judgment overturns concurrent findings of fact in respect of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract, without pointing out the exceptional circumstance or the perversity in the findings which were returned by the Courts below. (Para 24)
A Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction is to frame substantial question of law at the time of admission, save and except in exceptional circumstances. Post such framing of questions the Court shall proceed to hear the parties on such questions, i.e., after giving them adequate time to meet and address them. It is only after such hearing subsequent to the framing that a second appeal shall come to be decided. (Para 27.1)
In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below. (Para 27.2)
In view of the foregoing discussion we find it fit to remand the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Judgment and Order dated 30th September 2022 passed in Second Appeal No.324/2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) is set aside and the case is restored to the file of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and allowed in such terms. (Para 28)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 287 SC
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke Vs. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar And Others
Civil Appeal No. 6070 of 2023; [Arising out of SLP(C)No.20183 of 2022]-Decided on 21-09-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-287-SC.pdf
