Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BIRENDERA KUMAR DUBEY AND ANR. versus GIRJA NANDAN DUBEY AND ORS.

Decided
31 August 2001
Judges listed
S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 473 · 2001 INSC 415
Also cited as
  • (2001) 6 SCC 767 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties Delay is condoned·. Leave is granted.

pp. 473–474, margin G

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 353/1993 dated May 16, 2000. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and restored that of the Trial Court.

p. 474, margin A

A perusal of the judgment shows that the High Coutt has not framed any substantial question of law before proceeding to dispose of the Second Appeal. This Court has in Panchugopal Barua and Ors., v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 713; Kshitesh Chandra Parkait v. Santosh Kumar Parkait and Ors., [1997] 5 SCC 438; The Tehsildar and Ors. v. G. V. Gopalakrishnappa and Ors. disposed of on 25.9.2000 and Dyamappa H. Gondar v. Ganeshappa S. Sudambi and Anr., disposed of on 28.9.2000, held that having regard to the provisions of Sections 100 and IOI C.P.C., the High Court can entertain the Second Appeal only when a substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first Appellate Court. As the High Comt has not framed such a question but decided the Second Appeal on fact and reversed the first Appellate Court's judgment and decree, we have no option except to set aside the judgment and decree under appeai and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal according to law.

p. 474, margin B

The judgment and decree, under appeal, are set aside, the Second Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now consider whether any substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first Appellate Court and if so, to frame the question and dispose of the appeal on that question. The appeal is accordingly aliowed. There shali be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 474, margin D