SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present regular second appeal was filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. Framing of question of law was not necessary in the light of decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in 'Ganpat versus Smt. Ram Devi and Ors, 1977 79 PunLR 1', wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, are in no way effected and curtailed by the amendment made in Section 100 of CPC. Now, since the regular second appeal is maintainable only with the aid of section 100 CPC, therefore, substantial questions of law is sine qua non for maintaining the appeal.

(2.) PRIOR to amendment of Section 100 CPC, a second appeal could have been filed before this Court on the grounds set out in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 100 (1) CPC i.e. (a) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; (b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law and (c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.

(3.) NOW the interference in the second appeal could only be made if substantial question of law arises in the case. Therefore, the interference cannot be only because the order is contrary to law, but when the disputed issues raised a substantial question of law. Limiting such a power in the Appellate Authority is based on public policy having roots in the maxim 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium'. The underlined purpose was to bring finality to the issues/litigation at some point of time. In the present appeal, the substantial question of law has not been framed. Thus the Court proposes to frame following substantial questions of law in order to test the legality of claim of appellants: -