Supreme Court: Substantial Questions of Law Not Required To Be Formulated In Second Appeals Arising Out Of Punjab And Haryana Court

The Supreme Court in the case Gurbachan Singh (D) vs Gurcharan Singh(D) observed wherein second appeal is arising out of the State of Punjab And Haryana courts are required to frame substantial questions of law as stated under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed and has stated that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule.
In the present case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the second appeal and has set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below it.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has noted that the said case arises out of a dispute in Punjab.
The bench headed by Single Judge observed that in second appeal the jurisdiction cannot be faulted for not having framed substantial questions of law under section 100, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court also referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika.
The court in the case observed and has held that as per section 100 do not apply. Further, it has also been held by the said court that in appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1907.
Adding to it, the court stated that in the second appeal the must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court.
The bench in the case observed that it is equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone, wherein the said court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity”.Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.