The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 16th November 2020, in the matter of Kirpa Ram (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Surendra Deo Gaur & Ors. observed that the High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the CPC contemplates that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law is required to be precisely stated in the memorandum of appeal. If the High Court is satisfied that such substantial question of law is involved, it is required to formulate that question. (Para 23)
The appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated. However, the Court has the power to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the proviso of Section 100 of the Code. Therefore, if the substantial question of law framed by the appellants are found to be arising in the case, only then the High Court is required to formulate the same for consideration. If no such question arises, it is not necessary for the High Court to frame any substantial question of law. The formulation of substantial question of law or re- formulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law. (Para 23)
The High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law, in case, it finds no error in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. (Para 23)
Copy of judgement: Judgement_16-Nov-2020
-Adv. Tushar Kaushik