REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3505 OF 2009

State of Rajasthan & Ors.           ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura     …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the High Court

of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B.

Civil Regular Second Appeal No.186 of 2007 whereby

the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the

second appeal filed by the appellants herein and

affirmed the order dated  15.07.2006  passed  by the

1

first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of

2003.

2. Few facts need mention infra  for disposal of this

appeal.  

3. The State and its authorities are the appellants

herein. They are the defendants whereas the

respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit out of which

this appeal arises.

4. The respondent claiming to be the Society filed a

civil suit against the State and its authorities in

relation to the suit land. The suit was for grant of relief

of permanent injunction restraining the appellants

(defendants) from interfering in the respondent's

(plaintiff’s) possession over the suit land. It was

contested by the appellants (defendants).

5. The Trial Court by judgment/decree dated

26.09.2002 in Civil Suit No.38 of 2000   decreed the

suit and granted permanent injunction to the

2

respondent (plaintiff) and against the appellants

(defendants) in relation to the suit land. The

defendants (State) felt aggrieved and filed first appeal

before the Additional District Judge, Jaipur being

Regular  Civil Appeal  No. 37 of 2003.  By  Judgment

dated 15.07.2006, the first Appellate Court dismissed

the State's appeal and affirmed the judgment and

decree  of the  Trial  Court  giving rise to filing  of the

Second appeal by the State before the High Court.  

6. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the

State's appeal in  limine  holding that the appeal does

not involve any substantial question of law and hence

this appeal by special leave by the State in this Court

against the impugned order.

7. None appeared for the parties. We, therefore,

perused  the  record of the  case.  Having  perused  the

record, we are of the view that this appeal has to be

allowed and the case deserves to be remanded to the

3

High Court for deciding the State's second appeal

afresh on merits in accordance with law.

8. The need to remand the case to the High Court

for deciding the second appeal afresh on merits has

occasioned because we find that the High Court did

not  assign any reasons  while  dismissing the  appeal

and nor discussed the case on facts or in law. This is

clear  from the  impugned order, which  is reproduced

below:

“I have heard learned counsel for the appellant­defendants and have also gone through the impugned judgments of the two courts below. I find that the courts below have arrived at the finding after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties.   There is no infirmity in the finding of the courts below. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed in limine.”

9. In our considered opinion and as would be clear

from the mere perusal of the order quoted above, the

High Court did not discuss nor dealt with any issues

4

arising in the case  nor  dealt  with  any  submissions

urged by the appellant (State) with a view to show as

to how and on what basis the findings impugned in

the second appeal were bad in law and why the appeal

did not involve any substantial question(s) of law.  

10. This Court cannot countenance such casual

approach of the High Court in disposing of the second

appeal, which does not decide nor deals with any

issue(s) arising in the case.

11. In our view, even the cursory reading of the

judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate

Court would show that the second appeal does involve

substantial question(s) of law and, therefore, the

second appeal should have been admitted for final

hearing  by framing proper  substantial  question(s)  of

law arising in the case under Section 100 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Code”) for its final disposal.

5

12. As is clear from the record of the case, the

dispute  involved  in  the second appeal  relates  to  the

State land. The question relating to the title and

possession over the land in question is involved.  The

High Court with a view to find out as to who is the

owner of the land and who is in its possession,

whether the plaintiff as claimed was able to prove their

title over the suit land to the exclusion of the rights of

the State and, if  so, on what basis and whether his

possession if proved, is legal or not, etc. requires

elaborate discussion.  It should have been adjudicated

in  the  light  of legal  principle applicable  to the case,

pleadings and evidence.  

13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the

case needs to be remanded to the  High Court for

deciding of the Second Appeal afresh on all such

questions  which  do  arise in the case  but  were  not

decided much less in accordance with law.

6

14. In  view of the foregoing  discussion, the  appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order

is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court

for  deciding Second Appeal  No.  186/2007 afresh on

merits.  

15. The High Court will admit the second appeal by

framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in

the case as required under Section 100 of  the Code

and then after issuing notice of the appeal alongwith a

copy of substantial question of law framed to the

respondent (plaintiff) will decide the second appeal on

merits by answering the questions framed in

accordance with law.

16. We, however,  make it clear that we have not

applied our  mind to the  merits of the controversy

having formed an opinion to remand the case to the

High Court. The High Court will, therefore, decide the

second appeal uninfluenced by any of our

observations.

7

17. Since the appeal is quite old, we request the High

Court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as

possible.  

18. Since no one appeared for any of the parties in

this appeal, we request the High Court to issue notice

to the parties for their appearance in the Second

appeal so as to enable the High Court to dispose of the

appeal finally as directed above.               

        …...…...................................J.  [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

...…...……..............................J.            [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; January 07, 2019  

8