MULLA ABDUL KARIM MUZAWAR Vs. SAYEDABDUL RAZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by original plaintiff Nos. 2, 2(a),(d) and (e) is directed against the judgment of the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji disposing of Regular Civil Appeal No.112 of 2002. The appellants have taken exception to this judgment on various grounds and have formulated several substantial questions of law including question as to whether the judgment of the appellate Court satisfies the requirement laid down in Santosh Hazari V. Purushottam Tiwari reported in 2001 (3) SCC 179 and mandatory requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C.

(2.) Notice was issued to all respondents and all respondents have been served. However, only respondent No.2, has appeared through Advocate Shri Chopdekar. Other respondents are not represented though duly served. I have heard both learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2.

(3.) A second appeal is open only on a substantial questions of law. As observed by the Apex Court in Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari reported at (2001) 3 Supreme Course Cases 179, the judgment of an appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and recording findings, supported by reasons on all the issues arising, along with the contention put forth or raised by the parties for a decision of the appellate Court. In Santosh Hazari's case, the High Court had refused to entertain second appeal holding that there was no substantial question of law involved. The First Appellate Court is final Court of facts and when it did not discharge the duty cast on it as the final Court of facts, the Supreme Court found that the substantial question of law did arise and remanded the matter back to the High Court.