Page 1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1182 OF 2007

Faridabad Complex  Administration             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

M/s Iron Master India (P) Ltd.     …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the appellant(defendant)

against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated

16.02.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 530 of 2004

by  which  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  regular

second appeal filed by the appellant herein in limine

against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003

passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad

in C.A. No. 166 of 2002 whereby the appeal filed by

1

Page 2

the respondent(plaintiff) was allowed, the judgment

and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside

and the suit of the respondent was decreed.

2) We  herein  set  out  the  facts,  in  brief,  to

appreciate the issued involved in this appeal.

3) The respondent is a Limited Company having

their place of business in Faridabad. The appellant

is  a  Municipal  Corporation,  Faridabad  as  defined

under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”).  

4) The  respondent  is  subjected  to  payment  of

various taxes including House Tax under the Act on

the  properties  owned  by  them at  Faridabad.  The

respondent  filed  a  civil  suit  seeking  permanent

injunction  against  the  appellant  restraining  them

from  recovering  the  House  Tax  for  the  years

1991-92,  1992-93  and  1993-94  from  the

respondent on their properties. The appellant also

sought  a  declaration  that  a  demand notice  dated

20.11.1993 raised by the appellant calling upon the

2

Page 3

respondent to pay Rs.48,599.40  towards the House

Tax on their properties is illegal.  

5) The  appellant  filed  written  statement  and

defended the  aforementioned  demands  on various

grounds.  The  appellant  also  raised  an  objection

about the maintainability of the Suit.  

6) The Trial Court framed issues. Parties adduced

evidence.  Vide  judgment  and  decree  dated

20.09.2002  in  Case  No.  1483  of  1995,  the  Trial

Court  dismissed  the  Suit.  Felt  aggrieved,  the

respondent filed appeal being Civil Appeal No. 166

of  2002  before  the  Additional  District  Judge,

Faridabad.  By  order  dated  22.10.2003,  the

Additional  District  Judge  allowed  the  appeal,  set

aside the judgment  and decree of  the Trial  Court

and  decreed  the  respondent's  suit  against  the

appellant.  

7) Felt  aggrieved,  the  appellant(defendant)  filed

second appeal  before the High Court  wherein the

appellant  had  proposed  several  substantial

3

Page 4

questions  of  law  arising  in  the  case.   The  High

Court,  however,  dismissed  the  second  appeal  in

limine by  impugned  judgment/order  holding  that

the second appeal does not involve any substantial

question of  law.   It  is  against  this  judgment,  the

appellant(defendant) has filed this appeal by way of

special leave petition before this Court.

8) It is unfortunate that no one appeared for the

appellant  to  argue  the  appeal  before  this  Court

when the case was called on for hearing twice. We,

however,  refrained  ourselves  from  dismissing  the

appeal  in  default  and instead  perused the  record

with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  A.K.  Singla,  learned

senior  counsel  for  the  respondent  with  a  view to

decide the appeal on merits.      

9) Having  heard  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

respondent and on perusal of the record of the case,

we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand the

case  to  the  High  Court  for  deciding  the  second

appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.

4

Page 5

10) The question, which arises for consideration in

this appeal, is whether the High Court was justified

in  dismissing  the  second  appeal  of  the

appellant(defendant)  in  limine holding  that  it  does

not involve any substantial question of law?  

11) The learned Single Judge while dismissing the

appeal passed the following order:

“This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed  by  the  plaintiff  was  accepted,  the judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the  trial Court  were  set  aside  and  the  suit  of  the plaintiff was decreed.

While decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, it  was  found  by  the  learned  Additional District Judge that before fixing the annual value  and  imposing  the  house  tax,  the defendant had failed to decide the objections filed  by  the  plaintiff  against  the  proposed amendment  of  the  assessment  list.  It  was found that in fact the case of the defendant was that no objections were filed.  However, when a copy of the objections and the notice for  personal  hearing  were  shown  to  DW1 (produced by the defendant), he had to admit that  those  documents  were  issued  by  the defendant.  It  was  found  that  from  those documents, it was clear that the plaintiff had filed  objections  against  the  proposed amendment of the assessment list and there is  nothing  on  the  record  to  show  that  the objections  were  decided  before  the  annual value  was  fixed  and  the  house  tax  was

5

Page 6

imposed.  This  finding  of  the  learned Additional District Judge, in my opinion, is a finding of fact based on the evidence led by the parties, especially when there is nothing on  the  record  to  show  that  there  is  any misreading of evidence or that any material evidence  had  been  ignored  by  the  learned Additional  District  Judge  while  giving  this finding. Once it is found that the defendant had failed to follow the procedure laid down under the Act while imposing the house tax, in my opinion, the civil Court certainly had the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and  the  finding  of  the  learned  Additional District Judge in this regard also has to be affirmed.

In  this  view  of  the  matter,  in  my opinion, there is no scope for interference in the  present  appeal,  especially  when  no question  of  law  much  less  substantial question  of  law  arises  for  determination  in this appeal.

Hence,  the  present  appeal  is dismissed.”  

12) As observed supra, we do not agree with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court  in  the  impugned order.   In  our  considered

view, the appeal did involve the substantial question

of law and, therefore, the High Court should have

admitted  the  appeal  by  first  framing  proper

substantial  questions  of  law  arising  in  the  case,

issued notice to the respondent for its final hearing

6

Page 7

as provided under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure,  1908  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the

Code”) and disposed it of on merits.

13) As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature

of controversy involved in the suit and the issues

arising  in  the  case,  the  questions  raised  in  the

second appeal did constitute substantial questions

of  law  within  the  meaning  of  Section  100  of  the

Code.

14) Indeed, in our considered view, the questions,

viz., whether the suit seeking a declaration that the

demand  of  House  Tax  raised  under  the  Act  is

maintainable,  whether  such suit  is  barred and,  if

so, by virtue of which provision of the Act, whether

plaintiff  has  any  alternative  statutory  remedy

available  under  the  Act  for  adjudication  of  his

grievance  and,  if  so,  which  is  that  remedy,  and

lastly, whether the plaintiff has properly valued the

suit and, if so, whether they have paid the proper

Court fees on the reliefs claimed in the suit  were

7

Page 8

legal questions arising in the appeal and  involved

jurisdictional  issues  requiring  adjudication  on

merits  in  accordance  with  law.  The  High  Court

unfortunately did not examine any of these issues

much less in its proper perspective in the light of

relevant  provisions  of  the  Act  governing  the

controversy.

15) The High Court thus, in our view, committed

jurisdictional  error  when  it  dismissed  the  second

appeal  in  limine. We  cannot  countenance  the

approach of the High Court.  

16) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside. The case is now remanded to the High Court

for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with

law.

17) We, however, request the High Court to admit

the  second  appeal,  frame  appropriate  substantial

questions of law as required under Section 100 of

the Code keeping in view the pleadings and  findings

8

Page 9

of  the  two  courts  below.  Needless  to  say,  the

questions to be framed should be specific.

18) Before  parting,  we  consider  it  proper  to

mention  here  that  we  have  not  expressed  any

opinion on merits of the controversy and confined

our  inquiry  only  to  examine  whether  the  second

appeal  involved  any  substantial  question  of  law

within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code?

19) Since  none  appeared  for  the

appellant(defendant) in this Court, the High Court

would  issue  notice  to  the  appellant  before  it  is

finally heard.  We request the High Court to decide

the appeal expeditiously.

20) Record  of  the  case,  if  requisitioned,  be  sent

back to the High Court forthwith by the Registry.  

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                        …... ……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; March 07, 2017  

9