Framing Additional Questions In Second Appeal Requires Strong Reasons: Himachal Pradesh HC

In a strict enforcement of civil procedure limits, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has rejected an application to frame additional substantial questions of law in a 19-year-old appeal, reaffirming that second appellate jurisdiction cannot be converted into a tool for factual re-appreciation. The Court underscored that exceptional powers to modify issues under Section 100(5) of the CPC demand compelling justification rather than routine indulgence.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla presided over the matter, evaluating an application filed in a long-pending Regular Second Appeal arising from a boundary and property dispute.

Court's Rationale and Observations

The High Court relied heavily on binding precedents to emphasize the narrow scope of Section 100 of the CPC. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The ratio of the precedents is that the High Court is competent and endowed with discretionary jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law not stated when the second appeal was admitted. The High Court is entitled to formulate an additional substantial question of law for reasons to be recorded if the High Court is of the view that the case involves such a question of law. The proviso to sub-section 5 of Section 100 of the CPC comes into operation in exceptional cases, albeit for strong and convincing reasons to be specifically recorded by the High Court."

Addressing the specifics of the application, the Court noted that the applicant failed to justify why the proposed question was omitted at the time the appeal was filed nearly two decades ago. Finding that the issues sought to be raised were already covered under the existing formulated questions of law, the High Court dismissed the application.

Background

The underlying dispute originated from Civil Suit No. 199/1 of 95/91 filed in November 1991 for declaration, injunction, and possession of encroached land. The trial court partly decreed the suit in December 1999. On appeal, the District Judge, Shimla, dismissed the applicant's challenge in June 2007. Thereafter, the applicants filed Regular Second Appeal No. 452 of 2007, while the respondents filed a cross-appeal (RSA No. 459 of 2007), both of which were admitted in October 2007.

During the pendency of the appeal, the applicants submitted CMP No. 8294 of 2026, seeking to formulate an additional substantial question of law regarding whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court suffered from perversity and illegality. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that it was an attempt to force a re-appreciation of evidence on record after 19 years, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in C.P. Francis Vs. C.P. Joseph ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 1896": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 421).

Accepting the arguments of the respondents, the High Court held that no strong or convincing grounds were made out, leading to the dismissal of the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: CMP No. 8294 of 2026 in RSA No. 452 of 2007
Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:35191
Case Title: Surekha and another v. Sudama Ram and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr Mohan Singh, Advocate for R-1; Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for R-2 & R-4/State; Mr Vivek Sharma, Advocate for R-3.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 4601