In a significant judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside a decision by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a case concerning the procedural requirements for the admission and hearing of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The apex court emphasized the mandatory nature of framing substantial questions of law at the time of admission of a second appeal or subsequently, reiterating that such questions are pivotal for the final hearing of the appeal.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Nek Pal & Ors. vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & Ors., with Civil Appeal Nos. 8038-8039 of 2024, arose from disputes involving property transactions claimed to be void due to violations of specific statutory provisions. The original suit revolved around whether a property allegedly owned by Dera Baba Dargah Singh and claimed to be of religious charitable nature was validly transferred by the self-proclaimed manager, Jaswinder Singh. The property transfer’s legality was questioned under the Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962.
Legal Issues Involved
The critical legal issues deliberated in the second appeal before the High Court included:
1. Validity of the Property Transaction: Whether the transaction was void ab initio due to violations of Section 7 of the Hindu Public Religious Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962.
2. Ownership and Charitable Nature: Whether the property belonged to Dera Baba Dargah Singh and its classification as a religious charitable asset.
3. Procedural Irregularities: Whether the lower courts correctly decreed the suit based on revenue records such as Khasra, Khatauni, and โKisan Bahiโ issued in favour of leaseholders.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to adhere to the statutory requirement of framing substantial questions of law at the time of admitting the second appeal. Justice Abhay S. Oka, authoring the judgment, noted:
โUnless substantial questions of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal or any time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard. The reason is that a second appeal can be finally heard only on a substantial question of law formulated earlier.โ
The Supreme Court underscored that the absence of formulated substantial questions of law renders the process of final hearing in a second appeal legally flawed. The bench observed that the High Court’s approach in not notifying the parties or framing specific substantial questions prior to the hearing constituted a significant procedural lapse.
Decision of the Court
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated November 13, 2017, in Second Appeal Nos. 34/2003 and 48/2003. The apex court restored these appeals to the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, directing:
1. Opportunity for Framing Questions: The High Court is granted liberty to frame substantial questions of law as indicated in its earlier judgment or any additional questions deemed necessary.
2. Expedited Hearing: Recognizing the protracted nature of the litigation, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for an expedited hearing of the second appeals, directing them to be listed before the roster bench on August 27, 2024.
3. Interim Relief: Any interim relief that was operative in the restored appeals till the date of the impugned judgment shall continue.
Also Read
Parties and Legal Representation
The appellants, Nek Pal and others, were represented by Senior Advocate Ashish Kondle, while the respondents, Nagar Palika Parishad and others, had legal representation from prominent lawyers experienced in property and religious institution law.
