Ram Niwas Vs. Raj
Dulari & Ors  INSC 1408 (22 August 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5212 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.6968/2006) Ram Niwas ...Appellant Versus Raj Dulari & Ors.
...Respondents O R D E R Leave granted.
Plaintiff in the suit
is appellant before us. He filed a Civil Suit No. 874/1973 in the Court of
Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City(West), Jaipur for a decree for
permanent injunction in respect of Plot No. A-102 on the premise that on a
portion thereof, respondent No.2 had started digging the foundation.
Respondent No.2 claimed title over the land bearing Plot No.A-57 in its favour
on the basis of allotment thereof in the year 1965 in favour of the vendee.
between the parties relates to a plot measuring 24 ft. x 70 ft.
The said suit,
however, was dismissed by the learned trial Court opining that allotment in
favour of plaintiff having been cancelled and he having not been in possession
of the land in dispute, was not entitled to any decree.
An appeal was
preferred thereagainst. The First Appellate Court, however, allowed the said
appeal and decreed the suit filed by the appellant.
-1- Aggrieved by and
dis-satisfied therewith, the respondent No.1 filed a Second Appeal before the
High Court. By reason of an order dated 14.3.1985, the High Court formulated as
many as nine substantial questions of law.
By reason of the
impugned judgment, the High Court without referring to any substantial question
of law and even without considering the contention of the appellant herein that
the purported formulated questions are not substantial question of law, allowed
the Second Appeal preferred by respondent No.1 stating:
" A look at the
material on record demonstrates that on receiving the complaints against the
allotment of plots by the UIT,Enquiry Commission was appointed by the State
Government. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Commission the State
Government cancelled the allotment of plot No. A/102.
In the written
statement filed by the UIT it was averred that since the allotment of plot No.
A/102 was cancelled therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
appellate court did not properly appreciate the pleadings of the parties and
committed illegality in reversing the findings arrived at by the Munsif Jaipur
(West).The plaintiff after cancellation of allotment of Plot No. A-102 was not
entitled to any relief."
The jurisdiction of
the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited. It,
in terms of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Section 100, must formulate
substantial question (as of law) arising in the matter and proceed to determine
High Court did not comply with the said legal requirement. As the impugned
judgment does not satisfy the legal requirement, we have no other option but to
set aside the same. The Second Appeal is -2- allowed and the matter is remitted
to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court, if
any objection is taken, will determine as to whether the substantial questions
of law formulated on 14.3.1985 really raise any substantial question of law or
not. It would, however, be open to the High Court to formulate any other
substantial question of law.
As the Second Appeal
is of the year 1984, we would request the High Court to dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the
date of communication of this order.
The appeal is
Delhi, August 22, 2008.
Pages: 1 2 3