1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6125 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.1225 of 2005)

KUNDAN SINGH (DEAD) & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SALINDER KAUR & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Delay  condoned  in  filing  Substitution  Application  and  

refiling the Special Leave Petition.   

Substitution application is allowed.

Leave granted. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  dated  

26.05.2004  delivered in Regular Second Appeal No.3137 of 1986 by  

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh.  The  short  

grievance which has been articulated by learned senior counsel for  

the  appellant  that  the  learned  Single  Judge  allowed  the  Second  

Appeal without formulating the substantial question of law, which is  

the basic requirement of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  

This Court, in a series of judgments have categorically observed  

that the High Courts would not be justified in entertaining the  

Second Appeal without formulating substantial question of law.   

Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this  

Court  in  Koppisetty  Venkatratnam  (D)  through  LRs Vs.  Pamarti  

Venkayamma, (2009) 4 SCC p.244 in this regard.  In this view of the  

matter, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and  

remit the case to the High Court. The High Court is requested to

2

decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law.  

The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI; 30TH JULY, 2010