2019 (8) TMI 1793 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Remands Case for Fresh Consideration on Legal Grounds

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Versus Shiv Dayal and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, remanding the case to the High Court for fresh consideration after finding several substantial questions of law ... Maintainability of second appeal - whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the State's second appeals on the ground that these appeals did not involve any substantial question of law? - HELD THAT:- The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law - the need to remand the case to the High Court has arisen because it is found that the second appeals did involve several substantial questions of law for being answered on merits in accordance with law. The High Court was, therefore, not right in so holding. The High Court dismissed the second appeals essentially on the ground that since the two Courts have decreed the suit, no substantial question of law arises in the appeals - It is not the principle of law that where the High Court finds that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), such finding becomes unassailable in the second appeal. As a matter of fact, the suit could not have been tried properly without deciding these questions in the light of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable laws - the High Court, therefore, should have admitted the second appeal by framing appropriate substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and answered them on their respective merits rather than to dismiss the appeals without considering any of the questions raised. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeals afresh on merits after framing appropriate substantial questions of law(s) arising in the case - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved:Appeal against dismissal of second appeals by High Court on the ground of no substantial question of law.Analysis:1. Background: The appeals were filed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the second appeals filed by the State. The Plaintiff, a mining lessee, sought an injunction against the State to carry out mining operations on the suit land.2. Dismissal of Second Appeals: The High Court dismissed the second appeals stating that no substantial question of law was involved. However, the Supreme Court found that several substantial questions of law did exist, necessitating a remand to the High Court for fresh consideration.3. Concurrent Findings: The High Court's reasoning that since two lower courts decreed the suit, no substantial question of law arose was challenged. The Supreme Court clarified that a concurrent finding of fact is usually binding, but exceptions exist, allowing for review based on specific legal grounds.4. Substantial Questions of Law: The Supreme Court identified five key questions crucial for proper adjudication, including the status of the suit land, compliance with statutory provisions, and the validity of the mining lease under relevant laws.5. Remand and Directions: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remanding the case for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to frame substantial questions of law and decide the appeals based on evidence, pleadings, and applicable laws.6. Legal Representative: The Court addressed the issue of the Plaintiff's demise during the appeal process, ensuring that the appeals against the deceased party did not abate. The Court granted liberty to amend the cause title to reflect the legal representatives for continued proceedings.7. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of addressing substantial legal questions for a just resolution. The High Court was directed to expedite the proceedings and ensure a thorough examination of the legal issues involved in the case.