IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2909  OF 2002

SANSAR CHAND                        Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SWAMI VIVEKANAND ADARSH VIDHA MANDIR      Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order dated 23.5.2001 passed by the High Court of Jammu  

and Kashmir in Civil Second Appeal No.22 of 1998 whereby  

the High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of  

fact arrived at by both the Courts below.  

Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing  

on  behalf  of  the  appellant  has  taken  a  threshold  

objection  that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  

interfering  with  the  concurrent  findings  of  fact  in  

second  appeal,  without  formulating  the  substantial  

question of law.  He placed reliance on the decision of  

this Court in  Gurdev Kaur and Ors. vs.  Kaki and Ors.,  

(2007)  1  SCC  546,  particularly  on  paragraph  70  which  

reads as under:  

-2-

“Now,  after  the  1976  amendment,  the  

scope  of  Section  100  has  been  drastically  

curtailed and narrowed down. The High Courts  

would have jurisdiction of interfering under  

Section  100  CPC  only  in  a  case  where  

substantial questions of law are involved and  

those questions have been clearly formulated  

in the memorandum of appeal. At the time of  

admission  of  the  second  appeal,  it  is  the  

bounden duty and obligation of the High Court  

to formulate substantial questions of law and  

then  only  the  High  Court  is  permitted  to  

proceed  with  the  case  to  decide  those  

questions  of  law.  The  language  used  in  the  

amended section specifically incorporates the  

words as 'substantial question of law' which  

is  indicative  of  the  legislative  intention.  

It  must  be  clearly  understood  that  the  

legislative  intention  was  very  clear  that  

legislature  never  wanted  second  appeal  to  

become  'third  trial  on  facts'  or  'one  more  

dice  in  the  gamble'.   The  effect  of  the  

amendment  mainly,  according  to  the  amended  

section, was:

(i) The High Court would be justified in  

admitting  the  second  appeal  only  when  a  

substantial question of law is involved;

(ii) The substantial question of law to  

precisely state such question;

(iii) A duty has been cast on the High  

Court to formulate substantial question of law  

before hearing the appeal;

-3-

(iv) Another part of the section is that  

the  appeal  shall  be  heard  only  on  that  

question.”    

In  view  of  the  clear  enunciation  of  law  as  

declared by this Court in Gurdev Kaur and Ors. (supra),  

we are left with no option but to set aside the impugned  

judgment.  Consequently,  the  impugned  judgment  is  set  

aside and the case is remitted to the High Court of Jammu  

and Kashmir.   

The High Court may first evaluate as to whether  

any substantial question of law is involved or not. In  

case, the High Court comes to the conclusion that there  

is substantial question of law involved, the same may  

first be formulated and then it may proceed to decide the  

second appeal on that question.  

This  appeal  is  disposed  of  accordingly.  In  the  

facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we  direct  the  

respondent to pay the costs to the appellant which we  

quantify at Rs.10,000/-.  

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

.....................J (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi; May 5, 2010.