RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Undisputedly, the appeal was filed in the year 1982. Memo of appeal does not contain substantial questions of law as required under Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court vide order dated 24.5.1982, issued notices to the respondents. The order does not show that appeal was ever admitted. However, learned Counsel for the appellants states that as per the normal practice of this Court, the aforesaid order amounts to admission of the appeal. Be it as the case may be, no substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court. In RSA No. 888 of 1982 Kartar Singh and Anr. v. Tulsi (died), decided on 17.2.2010, same controversy arose. In paras No. 3 to 9 thereof, this Court has observed as under:

(3.) She further stated that non formulation of substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal as well as at the time of admitting the appeal was because of dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter Ganpat v. Smt. Ram Devi, 1978 80 PunLR 1. It was stated by both the Counsel that judgment passed by the Full Bench in the matter of Ganpat (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by LRs and Ors., 2001 128 PunLR 492. Hence, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Kaur (supra), appellants should not be suffered for no fault of them and must be permitted to rectify the mistake by invoking Rule 2 or Order 41 C.P.C.