In a critical ruling that reinforces the limitations on the appellate jurisdiction of High Courts, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that findings of lower courts cannot be overturned without framing substantial questions of law as mandated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The case, Civil Appeal No. 24805 of 2023, involved a prolonged legal battle over a property dispute between the appellants, Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors., and the respondent, Baijnath Choubey & Company. A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol delivered the judgment on September 13, 2024, underscoring the procedural obligations of High Courts in handling second appeals.
Background of the Case:
The dispute centered around a nearly 90-year-old landlord-tenant relationship involving premises at Nos. 37, 38, and 39, Ezra Street, Calcutta-700001. The property was originally settled by Harak Chand Veljee through a registered deed of settlement on February 19, 1933, in which the present plaintiffs, Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra and others, were trustees. The defendant, M/s. B.N. Choubey and Company, a partnership firm, had been a tenant on part of the property.
Alleging illegal subletting of the property, the plaintiffs served an eviction notice on July 22, 1984, and subsequently filed a suit for eviction. The Presidency Small Causes Court initially dismissed the suit in favor of the tenant on November 27, 2017. This decision was overturned by the City Civil Court at Calcutta on December 12, 2019, which decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the Calcutta High Court, in its judgment dated August 24, 2023, set aside the City Civil Court’s order, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues and Observations:
The Supreme Court’s review focused on the procedural errors made by the Calcutta High Court under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908. The key legal issues involved:
1. Failure to Frame Substantial Questions of Law: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to frame substantial questions of law when admitting the second appeal, which is a fundamental requirement under Section 100 of the CPC.
2. Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: The case also involved questions regarding the correctness of not including certain parties, such as the heirs and trustees of the estate of the original tenant, in the suit. The High Court had raised issues of non-joinder but had not established substantial legal grounds for these observations.
The Supreme Court observed:
“The impugned judgment overturns the finding of fact of the First Appellate Court qua sub-letting without framing a substantial question of law in this regard at any stage,” remarked the bench, highlighting the procedural lapse by the High Court.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s judgment was fundamentally flawed due to its failure to adhere to the procedural requirements under Section 100 of the CPC. Justice Maheshwari and Justice Karol underscored that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited strictly to cases involving substantial questions of law, which must be specifically framed and addressed.
Quoting earlier rulings, the Supreme Court reiterated:
“It is the duty of the High Court to frame substantial questions of law before hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, and such a second appeal has to be heard and decided on such substantial question of law.”
Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC should only be entertained when such questions are clearly formulated. The Supreme Court cited several landmark cases, including Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor and Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, reinforcing that the High Court must follow the mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC.
The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated August 24, 2023, and restored the City Civil Court’s decision dated December 12, 2019, which favored the plaintiff-appellants. It also directed the respondent, Baijnath Choubey & Company, to vacate the premises by December 31, 2024, and to bear any dues accrued until the date of eviction.
Case Title: Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors. vs. Baijnath Choubey & Company
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24805 of 2023)
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol
