Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of a civil appeal arising from a regular second appeal decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The sole contention raised by the appellant was that the second appeal was decided without framing a substantial question of law, as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant relied on judgments from the same High Court and others to support this plea. However, the Court noted that a different legal position prevails in Punjab and Haryana in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. The Court explained that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which does not require framing of a substantial question of law, continues to apply in Punjab. This is because the Punjab Act is a pre-Constitution law saved by Article 372(1) of the Constitution, and Section 97(1) of the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, only repeals amendments made to the CPC itself, not independent statutes. The Court held that the earlier decision in Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, which had held otherwise, was overruled by the Constitution Bench. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the High Court's decision did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 41, Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - The Constitution Bench in Pankajakshi (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors. held that Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, being a pre-Constitution law continued under Article 372(1), is not repealed by Section 97(1) of the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, and Article 254 has no application. Therefore, in the State of Punjab, a second appeal does not require formulation of a substantial question of law. (Paras 7-11) B) Civil Procedure - Pre-Constitution Law - Repugnancy - Article 254, Constitution of India; Article 372(1) - A pre-Constitution law like the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, is not a law made by the Legislature of a State under Article 254 but an existing law continued under Article 372(1). Hence, it is not subject to repugnancy under Article 254 and continues in force until altered or repealed by competent legislature. (Paras 9-11) C) Civil Procedure - Savings Clause - Section 97(1), Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 97(1) applies only to amendments made or provisions inserted in the principal Act (CPC) itself by a State Legislature or High Court, not to independent statutes like the Punjab Courts Act. Therefore, Section 41 of the Punjab Act is not repealed by Section 97(1). (Paras 7-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a regular second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court requires framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, or whether Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, which does not require such framing, continues to apply.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the second appeal was validly decided without framing a substantial question of law, as Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, applies in Punjab.
Law Points
- Second appeal
- substantial question of law
- Punjab Courts Act
- 1918
- Section 41
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Section 100
- Constitution Bench
- Pankajakshi v. Chandrika
- pre-Constitution law
- Article 372
- Article 254
- repugnancy
- savings clause
