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 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.

1

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

issues 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

respondent also sought a declaration that  a demand notice

dated  20.11.1993  raised  by  the  appellant  calling  upon  the

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

2

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  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

3

allow the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for

deciding  the  second  appeal  afresh  on  merits  in  accordance

with law.

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  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

4

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  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

5

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 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

6

required under Section 100 of the Code keeping in view the

pleadings and  findings 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  

7

8