IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5212   OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6968/2006)

    Ram Niwas             ...Appellant

Versus

    Raj Dulari & Ors.     ...Respondents                         

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Plaintiff in the suit is appellant before us. He filed a Civil Suit

No.  874/1973 in  the  Court  of  Munsif  and  Judicial  Magistrate,  Jaipur  City(West),

Jaipur for a decree for permanent injunction in respect of  Plot  No.  A-102 on the

premise  that  on  a  portion  thereof,  respondent  No.2  had  started  digging  the

foundation.

Indisputably,  Respondent  No.2  claimed  title  over  the  land

bearing Plot No.A-57 in its favour  on the basis of allotment thereof in the year 1965

in favour of the vendee.

The controversy between the parties relates to a plot measuring

24 ft. x 70 ft.

The said suit, however, was dismissed by the learned trial Court

opining that allotment in favour of plaintiff having been cancelled and he having not

been in possession of the land in dispute, was not entitled to any decree.  

An  appeal  was  preferred  thereagainst.  The  First  Appellate

Court, however, allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit filed by the appellant.

-1-

Aggrieved by and dis-satisfied therewith,  the respondent No.1

filed a Second Appeal before the High Court. By reason of an order dated 14.3.1985,

the High Court formulated as many as nine substantial questions of law.

By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court without

referring  to  any  substantial  question  of  law  and  even  without  considering  the

contention of the appellant herein that the purported formulated questions are not

substantial question of law, allowed the Second Appeal preferred by respondent No.1

stating:

"  A  look  at  the  material  on  record  demonstrates  that  on receiving  the  complaints  against  the  allotment  of  plots  by  the  UIT,Enquiry Commission was appointed by the State Government. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Commission the State Government cancelled the allotment of plot No. A/102. In the written statement filed by the UIT it was averred that since the allotment of plot  No. A/102 was cancelled therefore the plaintiff  was  not entitled to any relief. Learned lower appellate court did not properly appreciate the pleadings of the parties and committed illegality in reversing the findings arrived at by the Munsif  Jaipur (West).The plaintiff after cancellation of allotment of Plot No. A-102 was not entitled to any relief."

The jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  under Section  100 of  the

Code of  Civil  Procedure is  limited.  It,  in  terms of  Sub-sections  (3) and (4) of  the

Section 100, must formulate substantial question (as of law) arising in the matter and

proceed to determine the same.

Unfortunately,  the  High  Court  did  not  comply  with  the  said

legal requirement. As the impugned judgment does not satisfy the legal requirement,

we have no other option but to set aside the same. The Second Appeal is  

-2-

allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter

afresh. The High Court, if any objection is taken, will determine as to whether the

substantial    questions    of    law    formulated   on  14.3.1985   really  raise  any

substantial question of law or not. It would, however, be open to the High Court to

formulate any other substantial question of law.

As the Second Appeal is of the year 1984, we would request the High Court

to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of

six months from the date of communication of this order.

The appeal is allowed.

......................J.       [S.B. SINHA]

....................J                                       (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, August 22, 2008.