Skip to content


Mallamma and anr. Vs. Siddegowda and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Civil

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 782 of 2001 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4626 of 1999

Judge

Reported in

(2001)9SCC519

Acts

Code Of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 100

Appellant

Mallamma and anr.

Respondent

Siddegowda and ors.

Prior history

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4626 of 1999

Excerpt:


- [ s.p. bharucha and; y.k. sabharwal, jj.] - code civil procedure, 1908 — section. 100 — second appeal — manner of disposal — held, second appeal should be disposed of by framing a question of law and discussing the pleadings, issues and evidence in detail and why the concurrent findings of the courts below are to be set aside -- leave granted. the order under challenge was passed on a second appeal and the second appeal was allowed reversing the concurrent findings of the two courts below. order on the appeal accordingly.s.p. bharucha and; y.k. sabharwal, jj.1. leave granted.2. the order under challenge was passed on a second appeal and the second appeal was allowed reversing the concurrent findings of the two courts below. the order is brief, which it should not be. if a second appeal has to be allowed, a question of law has to be framed and there has to be a detailed discussion of the pleadings, the issues, the evidence and why the concurrent findings of the courts below are to be set aside. the appropriate course, therefore, is to set aside the order under challenge and restore the second appeal (rsa no. 438 of 1990) to the file of the high court to be disposed of afresh in the manner indicated above, expeditiously.3. order on the appeal accordingly.4. no order as to costs.

Judgment:


S.P. Bharucha and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

1. Leave granted.

2. The order under challenge was passed on a second appeal and the second appeal was allowed reversing the concurrent findings of the two courts below. The order is brief, which it should not be. If a second appeal has to be allowed, a question of law has to be framed and there has to be a detailed discussion of the pleadings, the issues, the evidence and why the concurrent findings of the courts below are to be set aside. The appropriate course, therefore, is to set aside the order under challenge and restore the second appeal (RSA No. 438 of 1990) to the file of the High Court to be disposed of afresh in the manner indicated above, expeditiously.

3. Order on the appeal accordingly.

4. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //