Balappa & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - Second Appeal - Partition Suit - High Court in second appeal without framing question of law found that approach of courts below was prima facie perverse and was an error apparent on the face of the record - Held - Discussion in impugned order was inadequate to set aside the findings of the courts below - High Court must frame substantial question of law and it is only if it is contended on behalf of appellant that findings of courts below are perverse that question of law should so state - Second appeal to be heard and disposed of afresh by High Court. [Paras 3 to 5]ORDER
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The order under challenge was passed on a second appeal. After a brief discussion, the learned Single Judge held that the approach of the courts below was "prima facie perverse and is an error apparent on the face of the record...". No question of law was framed. 4. The discussion in the impugned order is inadequate to set aside the findings of the courts below in a second appeal, that too in regard to a partition suit. The High Court must frame a substantial question of law and it is only if it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the findings of the courts below are perverse that the question of law should so state. 5. The High Court should then discuss the evidence in considerable detail as also its findings that the approach of the courts below was perverse. This is an unsatisfactory judgment and it is set aside. The second appeal (No.1048 of 1991) is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, expeditiously. 6. Order on the appeal accordingly. 7. No order as to costs. .