2019 INSC 0090
R EPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.1331  OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 23299 of 2018)
Shri Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal   ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Smt. Ratna Ashok Muranjan & Anr.        ….Respondent(s)
              
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   06.08.2018   of   the   High   Court   of
Judicature   at   Bombay   in   Second   Appeal   No.   44   of
2017   whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   second
appeal filed by the appellant herein.
1

3. In   order   to   appreciate   the   short   controversy
involved   in   this   appeal,   few   relevant   facts   need
mention hereinbelow.
4. The   appellant   is   the   plaintiff   whereas   the
respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of
which this appeal arises.
5. The   appellant   filed   a   civil   suit   against   the
respondents for specific performance of the contract in
relation   to   the   suit   property.   The   said   suit   was   based
on   an   agreement   dated   08.08.1984.   The   respondents
filed their written statement and denied the appellant's
claim.   The   Trial   Court   by   judgment/decree   dated
05.07.2004   decreed   the   appellant’s   suit   and   passed   a
decree for specific performance of the contract against
the respondents. 
6. The   respondents   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   first
appeal   before   the   District   Judge,   Pune.   By
judgment/decree dated 10.11.2016, the first Appellate
Court   allowed   the   respondents’   (defendants’)   appeal
2

and   dismissed   the   suit.   The   appellant   (plaintiff)   felt
aggrieved   and   filed   second   appeal   before   the   High
Court. 
7. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the
second appeal holding that the appeal does not involve
any   substantial   question   of   law   as   is   required   to   be
made   out   under   Section   100   of   the   Code   of   Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)
which has given rise to filing of   the present appeal by
way of special leave by the plaintiff in this Court.
8. The   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court
was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's second appeal
on the ground that it does not involve any substantial
question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100 of
the Code. 
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for   the  parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
3

inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the
impugned order remand the case to the High Court for
deciding   the   second   appeal   on   merits   in   accordance
with   law   after   framing   appropriate   substantial
question(s) of law arising in the case.
11. Having   perused the  record and  the  judgments of
the   Trial   Court,   first   Appellate   Court   and   the
impugned order, we are of the considered view that the
High   Court   was   not   right   in   holding   that   the   appeal
does not involve any substantial question of law within
the   meaning   of   Section   100   of   the
Code.   In   our   view,   the   appeal   did   involve   the
substantial   question   of   law   and   the   same,   therefore,
should   have   been   framed   at   the   time   of   admission   of
the second appeal as provided under Section 100 (4) of
the Code for its final hearing. Indeed Section 100 (5) of
the Code provides that the appeal shall be heard only
on the substantial question of law framed by the High
Court under Section 100 (4) of the Code.
4

12. It   cannot   be   disputed   that   the   interpretation   of
any  terms and  conditions  of a document  (such as the
agreement dated 08.08.1984 in this case) constitutes a
substantial   question   of   law   within   the   meaning   of
Section   100   of   the   Code.   It   is   more   so   when   both   the
parties admit the document. 
13. As   mentioned   above,   since   the   interpretation   of
documents constitutes the substantial question of law,
the   High   Court   should   have   first   framed   appropriate
substantial   question(s)   arising   in   the   case   especially
on   the   questions   in   relation   to   the   true   intent,   rights
and obligations arising from Clauses 3, 5 and 15 of the
agreement   dated   08.08.1984   in   the   context   of
pleadings and the reversing findings of the two Courts
below   and   then   should   have   called   upon   the
respondents   to   reply   to   the   questions   framed   keeping
in   view   its   jurisdiction   under   Section   100(5)   of   the
Code and its proviso. 
5

14. In   addition,   the   High   Court   also   could   have
framed questions on the issues, which are material for
grant   or   refusal   of   specific   performance   keeping   in
view   the   requirements   of   Section   16   of   the   Specific
Relief   Act,   pleadings   of   the   parties,   and   the   reversing
findings of the two Courts below on such issues with a
view to find out as to which finding is more preferable.
15. From   the   reading   the   impugned   order,   we   find
that, on one hand, the High Court went on interpreting
the terms of the document after hearing the argument
of   both   sides   (see   appearance   of   both   parties   through
lawyers)   and   on   the   other   hand,   in   conclusion,   held
that   it   does   not   involve   any   substantial   question   of
law.   It   virtually,   therefore,   decided   the   second   appeal
bipartite   like   the   first   appeal   without   keeping   in   view
the   scope   of   its   jurisdiction   conferred   by   Section   100
(4)   and   (5)   of   the   Code.     In   our   view,   the   approach   of
the   High   Court   while   deciding   the   second   appeal   was
6

not in conformity with the requirements of Section 100
of the Code.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents(defendants),
however,   vehemently   argued   that   the   findings   of   the
High   Court,   which   are   of   affirmance,     do   not   call   for
any  interference which  rightly resulted in dismissal of
the  suit  on  material  issues but,  in our  view, it is  now
for   the   High   Court   to   examine   the   issue   afresh   on
merits after framing the substantial question(s) of law.
We, therefore, express no opinion on the merits of the
issues urged.
17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we refrain
from entering into the merits of the case having formed
an opinion  to remand the case and while allowing  the
appeal   and   setting   aside   the   impugned   order   remand
the case to the High Court with a request to admit the
appeal   and   frame   appropriate   substantial   question(s)
of   law   which   arise(s)   in   the   case   in   terms   of   Section
100 (4) of the Code and then decide the second appeal
7

on   merits   by   answering   the   question(s)   framed   as   per
Section   100   (5)   of   the   Code   in   accordance   with   law
without being influenced by any of our observations on
merits.
18. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The impugned
order is set aside.      
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]     
                 
          
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2019.
8