2002 (11) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned judgments do not reflect or indicate as to what was the substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, in support of the impugned judgment, contended that though substantial question of law was not specifically stated in the impugned judgment, it can be made out from the very judgment that the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court were perverse and perversity itself was a substantial question of law for disturbing the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. He also added that in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, there is a practice that substantial que....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate court without doing so." Yet again, in Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, [2000] 3 SCC 708, this Court has expressed that the jurisdiction of a High Court is confined to appeals involving substantial question of law. Para 7 of the said judgment reads:            "7. It is to be reiterated that under Section 100 CPC jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve a substantial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments on 7th May, 1993. This Court in Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors v. HP A International and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 13, dealing with the contention that the long delay in delivery of judgment is sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal without going into this broad question, set aside the judgment under appeal on the ground of delay in delivery of judgment without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remitted the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. While doing so this Court observed, "However, it is correct to this extent that a long delay in delivery of judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants whose appeals have been....