KARTAR SINGH Vs. TULSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed way back in 1982. A perusal of the memo of appeal shows that no substantial question of law has been formulated therein as required under Section 100(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Not only this, when this appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 22.07.1982, no substantial question of law was formulated by this Court too as required under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) On being asked, Ms. Alka Sarin stated that substantial questions of law were filed in the Court on 28.03.2007, which were taken on record by the Court. She further submitted that once questions of law were taken on record by the Court vide order dated 28.03.2007, the same may be formulated as substantial questions of law.

(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 reported in, 1978 AIR(P&H) 137. 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. reported in, 2001 AIR(SC) 1273. 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.