MOHINDER KAUR Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Present second appeal was filed way back 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. The appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 31.8.1982, without formulating any substantial questions of law.

(3.) On being asked, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ganpat v. Smt. Ram Devi, 1978 80 PunLR 1 (F.B.), usual practice in this Court was not to formulate substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal. He further submitted that in view of Full Bench judgment in Ganpat's case (supra), this Court was not supposed to formulate substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal. The aforesaid judgment in Ganpat's case (supra) was over ruled by the Apex Court in Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by LRs and Ors., 2001 128 PunLR 492. After the judgment of the Apex Court in Kulwant Kaur's case (supra), Memo of Appeal ought to have been drafted strictly as per Section 100(3) of C.P.C. Till date, even after the lapse of about 9 yeas after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Kaur's case (supra), no application under Rule 2 Order 41 was moved seeking permission to incorporate substantial questions of law in the Memo of Appeal.