Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

“A Second Appeal Only Lies on a Substantial Question of Law” – Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi: In a significant ruling on November 21, 2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, upheld the eviction of the appellant, Rajender Bhardwaj, from a disputed property. The court’s decision, in this case, reinforced the legal principle that a second appeal is contingent upon the presence of a substantial question of law.

The case, titled RSA NO. 216 OF 2023, involved an appeal against the judgments of the Additional District Judge and the Senior Civil Judge. These judgments had previously decreed the eviction of Bhardwaj and the recovery of arrears and user charges.

Justice Arora, in her verdict, emphasized the limited scope of second appeals in the civil judicial system, quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamal and others (2020) 19 SCC 57, “A second appeal, or for that matter, any appeal is not a matter of right... A second appeal only lies on a substantial question of law.”

The case delved into the question of whether the appellant’s arguments presented any significant legal queries. The court found that the appellant’s contentions were primarily factual and did not raise substantial legal questions that warranted a second appeal. This aligns with the CPC’s restrictions on the right of second appeals to cases where a significant question of law is involved.

Moreover, the court acknowledged the appellant’s undertaking to vacate the disputed property by January 21, 2024, and granted an extension for this purpose. The appellant agreed to pay increased user charges in the event of non-compliance with the court’s orders.

Delhi High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of legal principles governing second appeals in civil litigation. The decision serves as a reminder that the scope of second appeals is not to re-agitate facts but to address substantial legal questions, ensuring the efficient and judicious use of judicial resources.

Date of Decision: 21st November 2023

RAJENDER BHARDWAJ VS SULOCHANA

Similar News