The High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law: HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

The defendant has filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur in civil first appeal No. (289/95) 48/2002 whereby and whereunder, the appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.03.1995 passed by the Additional Civil   Judge,   Jaipur in civil suit No.1731/1995 has allowed the first appeal and the respondent’s suit has partially been decreed. THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN under S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 278/2003 in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transfer Corporation and ORS. v/s Omprakash Sharma stated that the second appeal is not liable to succeed.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the order of his termination from service dated 1-10-1982, appellate order dated 1-2-1984 and review order dated 4-2-1986on the ground that allegations leveled against plaintiff were false, charge sheet was issued without seeking any explanation, copies of documents were not provided, such inquiry was conducted against the provisions of   Section   35   of Standing Orders and vitiates on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

The trial court considered the plaintiff’s case on merits and found the impugned termination order of termination and subsequent orders of   Appellate   Authority and   Reviewing   Authority are against principles of natural justice. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation only.   The trial court calculated the limitation from the first order of termination instead of counting the limitation from the final order of Reviewing Authority. The first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court on the issue of limitation. Since the trial court has already passed findings on merits in favor of the plaintiff holding that termination order and subsequent orders passed by Appellate and Reviewing Authorities are against principles of natural justice and such findings were never challenged by defendant RSRTC, accordingly, the first appellate court decreed the plaintiff’s suit vide its judgment and impugned order of termination dated and subsequent orders and passed by Appellate and Reviewing Authorities were declared null and void being violative of principles of natural justice.  Hence, this second appeal.

The Hon’ble high court came to the conclusion that imitation can be and should be counted from the last order, including orders of Appellate and Reviewing Authorities. Therefore, the question of law relating to limitation is answered negatively in view of the aforesaid two judgments.

In the opinion of the court, the first appellate court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in awarding back wages to the plaintiff from the date of his termination order and decreeing the plaintiff’s suit as a whole.

From the case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [(2011)9 SCC 684] of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the court came to the conclusion that cannot exercise its jurisdiction of   Section   100   CPC   without formulating substantial question of law.

According to the Hon’ble high court in the present case, the substantial questions of law as framed have been considered and this court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law as framed does fall within the scope of 100 CPC. It is a case where no substantial question of law is involved as there is no perversity or material irregularity in the judgment passed by the first appellate court. Accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.

Click here to read the judgment

Written by – Apeksha Khandelwal, legal assistant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat