SRI GAUTAM PAUL Vs. SMT. RADHA RANI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application for formulating further or other substantial questions of law has been necessitated due to an order dated 27th Jan. 2016 passed by learned Single Judge at the hearing of a second appeal. The appeal was admitted by an order dated 26th Aug., 2014 by a Bench to which one of us was a party (Girish Chandra Gupta, J.), which is why the matter has been assigned before this Bench. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appeal was to be heard only on the questions of law formulated by the Division Bench in its order dated 26th Aug., 2014. He also was of the opinion that any further or fresh questions of law or substantial questions of law can only be formulated by the Division Bench. To be precise his views in that regard are as follows:

(2.) The object of hearing an appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was discussed by one of us (Girish Chandra Gupta, J.), in FMA 2955 of 2002 in the judgment dated 8th Sept., 2003 wherein the following views were expressed.

(3.) It would be clear from the aforesaid views that object of Order 41, Rule 11 is to shorten the litigation wherever it is possible. It is also the object of Order 41, Rule 11 to weed out unmeritorious appeals at the threshold. But once an appeal has been admitted, as in this case, there is a presumption that the Division Bench was satisfied that the appeal involved substantial questions of law once such question was formulated.