IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6203 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7461 of 2009)

Pushpchand                     ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Builam Kanwar (Dead) through L.Rs.        ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  is  the  tenant’s  appeal  for  setting  aside  

judgment dated 17th January, 2009 of the learned Single  

Judge of the Rajasthan High Court who allowed the second  

appeal  filed  by  the  landlord,  set  aside  judgment  and  

decree  dated 2.2.2005  of the  lower appellate  court and  

restored the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court.

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that after  

making a mention of the judgments and decrees passed by  

the  courts below,  the High  Court proceeded  to observe:  

“The  following  substantial  questions  of  law  arises  for  

consideration by this Court:

“Whether  the  first  appellate  court  could  reverse  the  findings  of  facts  recorded by the learned trial Court on  issue No.1(a) and 1(b) simply because  the learned first appellate court did  not agree with the findings recorded by  the  learned  trial  Court  and  no  error  much less any jurisdictional error has  been  committed  by  the  learned  trial  court.”

....2/-

- 2 -

It is borne out from the record that at the time of  

issuance of notice in the second appeal, the High Court  

did  not  frame  any  substantial  question  of  law.   Even  

before commencement of hearing of the second appeal, the  

High Court is not shown to have formulated any substantial  

question of law.

It is settled law that when a second appeal is  

placed before the High Court for consideration, it has to  

consider whether any substantial question of law arises  

therein.  In case the High Court feels satisfied that the  

case involves a substantial question of law, then it is  

required to formulate such question.  The appeal is then  

required to be heard on the question so formulated.  The  

respondent can, at the hearing of the appeal, argue that  

the case does not involve any substantial question of law  

including the one framed by the High Court.  Of course, it  

is open to the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, to  

formulate any other substantial question of law.

Since the impugned judgment was passed by the High  

Court without formulating any substantial question of law  

arising in the case, the same is liable to be set aside.  

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment  

is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court,  

which shall now consider whether any substantial question  

of law arises in the appeal.  If the High Court comes to  

the conclusion that such question arises, then it shall  

formulate  the  same  and,  thereafter,  decide  the  appeal  

after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

As the suit for eviction was filed in the year  

1991, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal  

within a period of six months from the date of receipt /  

production of copy of this order.

....3/-

- 3 -

All the parties are represented before this Court.  

Therefore, the High Court is not required to issue fresh  

notice to any of them.  It will be open to the parties to  

inform their respective advocates before the High Court  

and arrange for their appearance on the date which may be  

fixed by the High Court.

......................J.            [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.            [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 11, 2009.