2002 JTR(SC) 926
2003 1 AllCJ 5 ; 2003 1 AWC 22 ; 2002 3 BLJR 2496 ; 2003 1 CHN(SC) 142 ; 2002 3 CivCC 680 ; 2002 5 CTC 517 ; 2003 1 CurLJ 359 ; 2002 DNJ 639 ; 2003 1 ICC 215 ; 2003 1 JLJR(SC) 166 ; 2002 7 JT 235 ; 2003 LatestHLJ 121 ; 2002 20 LCD 1184 ; 2002 2 PLJ 341 ; 2003 1 PLJR(SC) 166 ; 2003 1 PLR(SC) 101 ; 2002 4 RCR(Civ) 510 ; 2003 1 RLW(Raj) 106 ; 2002 6 Scale 537 ; 2002 7 SCC 441 ; 2002 SCR 394 ; 2003 1 WBLR 76 ; 2002 1 WLC 771 ; 2002 KHC 1359 ; 2002 6 Supreme 337
2002(6) Supreme 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Rattan Dev -Appellant
versus
Pasam Devi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19378 of 2001)
Decided on 13-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ravi Bakshi, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : A.K. Nag, R.K. Bansal and Akshay Kr. Ghai, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
As there is a failure on the part of 1st appellate court in not considering other material available on record by not discharging its obligation-statutory and judicial, more so when it is a judgment of reversal, it would meet the ends of justice if case is remanded to 1st appellate court rather than to the High Court as the first appeal is required to be heard afresh.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.96, S.100
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : .
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 96 and Section 100, alongside the Specific Relief Act, govern the procedural framework for appeals and the scope of appellate review, while Article 136 of the Constitution provides the ultimate jurisdictional recourse. In this matter, the interplay between these provisions is determinative, as the dismissal of a second appeal in limine by the High Court hinged on the characterization of findings of fact versus questions of law. The subsequent setting aside of the lower appellate order underscores that a judgment which fails in its judicial obligation to apply its mind to material evidence, particularly where a reversal is pronounced, raises a substantial question of law cognizable under the inherent powers of the Supreme Court. The procedural history, involving a decree for specific relief followed by a reversal on appeal, necessitates a re-examination to ensure that the appellate process has been afforded a fair and just opportunity to adjudicate the merits.
(B) The core legal principle affirmed is that an appellate court must exercise its jurisdiction to apply its mind to the entire record, and an error in appreciating material evidence or failing to discharge judicial obligation in a reversal constitutes a substantial question of law justifying the grant of special leave to appeal. Non-examination of a party may invite an adverse inference, but this must be weighed against the entire evidence, and a mechanical disposal of an appeal without considering the available record is a jurisdictional defect.
Facts of the case:
A suit for a permanent preventive injunction was decreed in favor of the plaintiff by the Trial Court. The defendant appealed, and the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in court despite having been given the opportunity, drawing an adverse inference against him. The plaintiff then preferred a second appeal, which was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the basis that the First Appellate Court's findings were purely factual. The plaintiff subsequently filed a special leave petition before this Court challenging the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court failed to apply its mind to the other material evidence on record and did not satisfactorily discharge its statutory and judicial obligation. The non-examination of the plaintiff was a factor, but the appellate disposition did not appropriately consider the overall evidence, raising a substantial question of law regarding the fairness and correctness of the appellate order.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in not applying its mind to the available evidence and improperly disposing of the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that an appellate court must comprehensively consider all evidence on record before reaching a conclusion. A mere failure to examine the party, while relevant, does not preclude a fair assessment of the evidence. Where an appellate order involves a reversal and is found to be without satisfactory application of mind to material evidence, it constitutes a substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the appeal must be restored for fresh hearing.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the matter is restored to the First Appellate Court for re-hearing in accordance with law.
(A) The Civil Procedure Code, Section 96 and Section 100, alongside the Specific Relief Act, govern the procedural framework for appeals and the scope of appellate review, while Article 136 of the Constitution provides the ultimate jurisdictional recourse. In this matter, the interplay between these provisions is determinative, as the dismissal of a second appeal in limine by the High Court hinged on the characterization of findings of fact versus questions of law. The subsequent setting aside of the lower appellate order underscores that a judgment which fails in its judicial obligation to apply its mind to material evidence, particularly where a reversal is pronounced, raises a substantial question of law cognizable under the inherent powers of the Supreme Court. The procedural history, involving a decree for specific relief followed by a reversal on appeal, necessitates a re-examination to ensure that the appellate process has been afforded a fair and just opportunity to adjudicate the merits.
(B) The core legal principle affirmed is that an appellate court must exercise its jurisdiction to apply its mind to the entire record, and an error in appreciating material evidence or failing to discharge judicial obligation in a reversal constitutes a substantial question of law justifying the grant of special leave to appeal. Non-examination of a party may invite an adverse inference, but this must be weighed against the entire evidence, and a mechanical disposal of an appeal without considering the available record is a jurisdictional defect.
Facts of the case:
A suit for a permanent preventive injunction was decreed in favor of the plaintiff by the Trial Court. The defendant appealed, and the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in court despite having been given the opportunity, drawing an adverse inference against him. The plaintiff then preferred a second appeal, which was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the basis that the First Appellate Court's findings were purely factual. The plaintiff subsequently filed a special leave petition before this Court challenging the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court failed to apply its mind to the other material evidence on record and did not satisfactorily discharge its statutory and judicial obligation. The non-examination of the plaintiff was a factor, but the appellate disposition did not appropriately consider the overall evidence, raising a substantial question of law regarding the fairness and correctness of the appellate order.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the second appeal in limine on the ground that no substantial question of law arose.
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in not applying its mind to the available evidence and improperly disposing of the appeal solely on the ground of non-appearance.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that an appellate court must comprehensively consider all evidence on record before reaching a conclusion. A mere failure to examine the party, while relevant, does not preclude a fair assessment of the evidence. Where an appellate order involves a reversal and is found to be without satisfactory application of mind to material evidence, it constitutes a substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the appeal must be restored for fresh hearing.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside, and the matter is restored to the First Appellate Court for re-hearing in accordance with law.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. A suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction filed by the appellant herein was decreed by the Trial Court. The defendant preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court and directed the suit to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court forming an opinion that the findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court were purely findings of fact and no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC arose for consideration .
3. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that the plaintiff-appellant did not appear in the witness box although his special power of attorney and other witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court influenced by the non-examination of the plaintiff drew an adverse inference against him and directed the suit to be dismissed solely on the ground of non-examination of the plaintiff. The judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that other evidence, though available on record, did not receive the attention of the First Appellate Court at all.
4. In our opinion, the First Appellate Court was bound to apply its mind to all the evidence available on record and then test the legality of the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. While doing so, the First Appellate Court could have taken the factum of the non-examination of the plaintiff also into consideration. The manner in which the appeal has been disposed of by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be satisfactory. Non-application of mind by the Appellate Court to other material, though available, and consequent failure of the Appellate Court to discharge its judicial obligation, did raise a question of law having a substantial impact on the rights of the parties, and therefore, the second appeal deserved to be heard on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Ishwar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC, 457 wherein this Court has emphasised that withholding of the plaintiff himself from the witness box and thereby denying the defendant an opportunity for cross-examination of himself results into an adverse inference being drawn against the plaintiff. That proposition of law is undoubtable. However, as we have already said, that is a fact to be Kept in view and taken into consideration by the Appellate Court while appreciating other oral and documentary evidence available on record. May be that from other evidence - oral and documentary - produced by plaintiff, or otherwise brought on record, the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus which lay on him, and, subject to the court forming that opinion, a mere abstention of plaintiff himself from the witness box may pale into insignificance.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, remanding the matter to High Court for re-hearing would only prolong the life of litigation. As we are satisfied of the failure on the part of the First Appellate Court in discharging its obligation - statutory and judicial, more so when it is a judgment of reversal, it would meet the ends of justice if the first appeal itself is directed to be heard afresh.
7. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal in limine as also the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are set aside. The appeal shall stand restored on the file of the First Appellate Court which shall be heard and decided afresh, consistently with the observations made hereinabove and in accordance with law.
8. No order as to the costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed accordingly.
****************
Parallel Citation of other Journals :
Rattan Dev v. Pasam Dev, 2002(6) Supreme 237 : 2002 (7) JT 235 : (2002) 7 SCC 44 : 2002 (4) CCC 4. State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
00035