Savithri Yeshwantrao Chagule and anr. Vs. Chamu Junnappa Sheri and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - civil procedure code (cpc), 1908 - section 100 - the high court should have framed the substantial question of law before deciding the matter - decision of the high court set aside - appeal allowed - section 12(1) & securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub-brokers) rules, 1992, rule 3 & securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub-brokers) regulations, 1992, regulation 25: [dr. arijit pasayat & lokeshwar singh panta, jj] violation of section 12(1) read with rule 3 by brokers/sub-brokers - powers of board/tribunal held, only penalty is provided under act and regulations is of either suspension or cancellation of certificate of registration. even board has no power to impose any monetary penalty. no power is conferred on tribunal to travel..........that there was, in fact, no substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 of the civil procedure code, that the high court has erred in setting aside the decisions of the lower courts after reappreciation of the material on record as if it were sitting in regular appeal. this submission is denied by the respondents who contended that although no question of law was formally framed, the high court had, in fact, decided a question of law which arose out of the decisions of the lower courts.3. in view of the provisions of section 100 of the code of civil procedure, we are of the view that the high court should have complied with it in terms thereof and framed the substantial question of law before deciding the matter. we, accordingly, set side the decision of the high.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants filed a suit claiming their mother's interest in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants. The first appeal filed by the respondents herein was also dismissed. In second appeal, the High Court, without framing a question of law, set aside the decisions of the lower Courts. It is the submission of the appellants that there was, in fact, no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the High Court has erred in setting aside the decisions of the lower Courts after reappreciation of the material on record as if it were sitting in regular appeal. This submission is denied by the respondents who contended that although no question of law was formally framed, the High Court had, in fact, decided a question of law which arose out of the decisions of the lower Courts.

3. In view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the view that the High Court should have complied with it in terms thereof and framed the substantial question of law before deciding the matter. We, accordingly, set side the decision of the High Court without expressing any view on the merits of the case. The High Court will now dispose of the second appeal in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.