eCourtsIndia

Promila Gupta vs. Kanwal Kumar Saigal

Final Order
Court:High Court, Delhi
Judge:Hon'ble Unknown Judge
Case Status:Unknown Status
Order Date:9 Jan 2006
CNR:DLHC010205042003
Download True Copy

AI Summary

In this Delhi High Court judgment, Justice R.S. Sodhi dismissed a Regular Second Appeal challenging an order by the Additional District Judge, holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a regular second appeal. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent regarding declarations in specific performance matters.

Ratio Decidendi:
Concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the first appellate court cannot be disturbed or re-examined in a Regular Second Appeal. The scope of review in a second appeal is limited to questions of law, and factual findings that are concurrent between the lower courts are binding on the appellate court.
Obiter Dicta:
A suit for declaration lies in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as settled by the Supreme Court in Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi. However, the availability of such a remedy does not extend to challenging concurrent factual findings in a second appeal.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:RSA 210/2003
Case Type:Regular Second Appeal (RSA)
Case Sub-Type:RSA - Specific Performance of Contract Matters
Secondary Case Numbers:CM.APPL.234/2006, CM.APPL.721/2003, Appeal No. 529/2000, Suit No. 316/92
Order Date:2006-01-09
Filing Year:2003
Court:High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench:Single Judge
Judges:Hon'ble R.S. Sodhi

Petitioner's Counsel

Sudhir Nandrajog
Advocate - Appeared

Respondent's Counsel

Alok Mahajan
Advocate - Appeared
Pt. Rajesh Arya
Advocate - Appeared

eCourtsIndia AITM

Brief Facts Summary

Promila Gupta filed a suit (Suit No. 316/92) in the Civil Court seeking a declaration regarding specific performance of a contract against Kanwal Kumar Saigal and another party. The Civil Judge passed a judgment and decree on March 8, 2000. Promila appealed to the Additional District Judge in Appeal No. 529/2000, which was dismissed on March 29, 2003. Promila then filed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA 210/2003) in the High Court of Delhi on November 21, 2003, challenging the order of the Additional District Judge. Additionally, an application for restoration (CM.APPL.234/2006) was filed, which was allowed on January 9, 2006.

Timeline of Events

1992

Suit No. 316/92 filed in Civil Court by Promila Gupta seeking declaration regarding specific performance of contract

2000-03-08

Civil Judge passed judgment and decree in Suit No. 316/92

2000

Appeal No. 529/2000 filed by Promila Gupta in Additional District Judge against the Civil Judge's judgment

2003-03-29

Additional District Judge dismissed Appeal No. 529/2000

2003-11-21

RSA 210/2003 filed in High Court of Delhi challenging the Additional District Judge's order

2005-04-27

First hearing date in High Court for RSA 210/2003

2006-01-09

High Court passed final order dismissing RSA 210/2003 and CM.APPL.721/2003, and allowing CM.APPL.234/2006 for restoration

Key Factual Findings

The suit for declaration lies in the facts and circumstances of the present case

Source: Recited from Supreme Court Precedent (Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi)

Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a Regular Second Appeal

Source: Current Court Finding

The judgment under challenge (Additional District Judge's order) contains concurrent findings of fact with the trial court

Source: Current Court Finding

Primary Legal Issues

1.Whether a suit for declaration lies in the facts and circumstances of the case
2.Whether concurrent findings of fact can be disturbed in a Regular Second Appeal
3.Applicability of Supreme Court precedent on declaration suits to the present case

Secondary Legal Issues

1.Scope of review in a Regular Second Appeal
2.Distinction between questions of law and questions of fact in appellate review

Questions of Law

Does a suit for declaration lie in the present facts and circumstances? - Answered in affirmative based on Supreme Court precedent
Can concurrent findings of fact be disturbed in a Regular Second Appeal? - Answered in negative

Petitioner's Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner (Promila Gupta) contended that a mere suit for declaration would not lie in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower courts.

Respondent's Arguments

Counsel for the respondent (Kanwal Kumar Saigal and ANR) relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi, JT 2005(11) SC 122, where the law has been settled that such a declaration would lie in the circumstances presented.

Court's Reasoning

Justice R.S. Sodhi, after hearing counsel for both parties and perusing the judgment under challenge as well as the Supreme Court judgment, held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a Regular Second Appeal. The court applied the well-established principle that in a second appeal, the appellate court cannot re-examine concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the first appellate court. The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent to uphold the validity of the suit for declaration, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on the ground that the factual findings were concurrent and therefore not open to challenge in the second appeal.

Statutory Interpretation Method:
Literal interpretation of the scope of Regular Second Appeal
Judicial Philosophy Indicators:
  • Emphasis on adherence to established appellate procedure and limitations
  • Respect for concurrent findings of fact as binding
  • Reliance on Supreme Court precedent for substantive law
Order Nature:Substantive
Disposition Status:Disposed
Disposition Outcome:Dismissed

Impugned Orders

Additional District Judge
Case: Appeal No. 529/2000
Date: 2003-03-29

Specific Directions

  1. 1.RSA 210/2003 and CM.APPL.721/2003 are dismissed
  2. 2.CM.APPL.234/2006 for restoration is allowed and disposed of
  3. 3.RSA 210/2003 is restored to original number and file

Precedential Assessment

Persuasive (Other High Court)

This is a High Court judgment applying well-established principles regarding the scope of Regular Second Appeals. While it does not create new law, it provides persuasive authority on the application of the principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The judgment is binding within the Delhi High Court and persuasive for other High Courts.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.In a Regular Second Appeal, the appellate court cannot re-examine or disturb concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court and the first appellate court. The scope of review is strictly limited to questions of law.
2.When challenging a lower court's order in a second appeal, counsel must focus on identifying pure questions of law rather than attempting to re-argue factual matters that have been consistently found by both lower courts.
3.The availability of a particular remedy (such as a suit for declaration) does not extend to challenging concurrent factual findings in appellate proceedings. Substantive law and procedural limitations must be considered separately.

Legal Tags

Concurrent findings of fact in Regular Second Appeal cannot be disturbedScope of review in Regular Second Appeal limited to questions of lawSuit for declaration in specific performance contract mattersAppellate procedure and limitations on factual reviewSupreme Court precedent application in High Court appealsBinding nature of concurrent findings between trial and first appellate courtRegular Second Appeal dismissal on grounds of concurrent findingsDeclaration suit validity in contract performance disputesAppellate jurisdiction and factual determination boundariesHigh Court review of Additional District Judge orders in RSA
Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi, JT 2005(11) SC 122
Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi
2005Supreme Court
The Supreme Court settled the law that a suit for declaration would lie in the facts and circumstances similar to the present case
Relied Upon

Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

First Hearing

Listed On:

27 Apr 2005

Order Text

$\overrightarrow{r}$ . No.Date<b>Orders</b>
$\ast$<br>IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RSA 210/2003<br>$+$
PROMILA GUPTA<br>Appellant<br>Through Mr.Sudhir Nandrajoig,<br>Advocate.
versus
KANWAL KUMAR SAIGAL & ANR<br>Respondents<br>Through Mr. Alok Mahajan with<br>Pt.Rajesh arya, Advocates.<br><b>CORAM:</b>
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SODHI
ORDER<br>$%$<br>09.01.2006
CM.APPL.234/2006:
This is an application for restoration. Cause shown in the
application appears to be genuine. The application is allowed
and disposed of. RSA 210/2003 is restored to original number
and file.

RSA 210/2003 & CM.APPL.721/2003:

RSA 210/2003 seeks to challenge the order of the Additional District Judge in Appeal No.529/2000, which appeal was against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in suit No. 316/92. Learned Trial [RSA 210/2003] [page 1 of 2]

Signature Not Verified<br>Digitally Signed BAAJULYA<br>Certify that the digiter file and<br>physical file have then compared and<br>the digital data is as per the physical<br>file and no page is dissing.

$\sqrt{2}$

Orders

Court vide its order dated 29.3.2003 lias dismissed tlie appeal.

It is contended by counsel for the petitiner that mere suit for declaration in the present facts and circumstances would not lie. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi. JT 2005(11) SC 122, where the law has been settled and where such a declaration would lie.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment under challenge as also the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a regular second appeal.

RSA 210/2003 & CM.APPL.721/2003 are dismissed.

Dasti.

SODHI, J

JANUARY 09, 2006 bp

[RSA 210/2003]

[page 2 of2]

r. No. Date

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(1) - 9 Jan 2006

Final Order

Viewing
Similar Case Search

Similar Case Searches

Regular Second Appeal RSA dismissal concurrent findings of factDelhi High Court specific performance of contract matters judgmentPromila Gupta versus Kanwal Kumar Saigal property dispute appealConcurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in RSASupreme Court Shanti Kumar Panda declaration suit precedent applicationHigh Court Delhi RSA 210/2003 final order January 2006Suit for declaration in specific performance contract matters IndiaAdditional District Judge appeal order challenged in High CourtJustice R.S. Sodhi judgment on concurrent factual findings appealRegular Second Appeal dismissal grounds concurrent findings of factDelhi High Court property dispute declaration suit legal precedentKanwal Kumar Saigal Promila Gupta contract performance litigation outcomeShanti Kumar Panda Shakuntala Devi Supreme Court citation applicationHigh Court appeal dismissal concurrent findings factual determinationSpecific performance contract matters Delhi High Court RSA decision