lams you start introducing her in the fullest,you can even give that one hour what it's what we have for introducing the speaker who is not only having immense knowledge, but also her passion to immensely share it with the people in the call public and pledge is what makes her separate from the common man, and we can say that when we talk about the topic of substantial law and how the journey of law substantial law under section of CPC अरींग्उएटान काम सब भी विश्टीक of the cuff अरींग्उएटान काम सब बलागच लगतागचा तोसरी के मेसे शहारी नहीं। अच्तवीशाएक है,विश्टीक अच्टिख सब चिएद कोगादान की देषेझ कोगागचा, जुती हैं. समच्ट्टान्या लोब शाक्टा। तुज्टंँ समच्टान्या वतोग ब्रूह आप था साज्टे भी बाग। तुज्टंँ सर्फ से जिस मित्रे फोड़ाक विरानी आश्व मृऽाद. अन्यज़ाए। और वகள कह अज़ायव�� तॉक को वहि परागा हैasant नात का उसंदो still का रो� ex इंुँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँँ, को आचान भी भात भी एड़ा लाव-ाँक्जद देता। वेदःान मंगे वामने रेगानान note, तीषेड़र आप समझाई आप हुल आप सच्चीः कर अरनका है। देता च़ें नाए. मद्वाज़ मैंचे को बैस्ताऊँसा त॥reaming to the fraternity of the human service and I would like to say that I am one of the beneficiaries many a times I sit Take notes, read Listen to whatever has been said and amazing sharing of knowledge by several stalwarts in the field. , meratulations for inclusion of weekly Conference of Dharma to Women's潮 do. The question here is, today we are dealing with the subject which is substantial question of law. चुठा।, आयशेः। तो वो वो दूए मितार्गा कर शिताथके रवात। आप चिस्टिय कऱ्दा लेक सीभिसार है। आप चारदित मुझे चुल्बात। आप दूए मुझे जाबॉ़ाना है. एक वो आप लग़ा। מ� excluding by trout वेडबिनातко अजुःँ than ज़ि अवोरशी लinterpret प्रशिम के सर्ब तुन रोन Danny यो स्थ şunuन होँगा शूछे यो दे despite  parody called now you see when we see this substantial question of Law i would like to confine myself only to civil suits what we have today as section देषे कि ईवाँ च़या मोबा आप उजादी आप जब आपई मैं काई फ्ुषोट्तम तिवारी आफँऎता, उग्छे लगे तब घिष्ट्ट्म तीवा इग, आप जब संब तब छीज़़, आप शीज़े दिख्ते, वहुत इउदगे चाथ, सन्टोअश क्होद originated houses where the्ण्तवाँ सुछत्यदाइग Everybody just request शा groundbreaking आपसने द संटमतीपास क्सभी Nona उन स्आपने खळ प्रवाँ coconut शाक करट ऴो कर्ज भारवी ठू ढन्दु्रा affinity आप मीनदरoken आप दीशने करागते स्वलको मेंदिरनीसे कमगया करनियंतनग हैं जेज मतरके आप आ Ethiopia क़ आप मीदिरनी spirit .. आप ऐसे औस्थाछतानव मेंस xiāt ex-miester वो लग वी आपा कि धा省 अऴ छबा е क्ये शLast ये आप सविलि लेख,कि मोगे LOVE � comp slog in current छ़िभार मी lime, lime-онов। छ़िभार मी lime- evena mutation. ॡ२ अब Hima mutation. इन्कुछन करीक के रहा古łecकान coordinator � jeux का ह वे shift. आस 이거를 वह शब interns । हो पुugen procedure. अब tonight. और आपका कोणतोஞ्ं क aosक्छन कोत जया after. और ऐपकाक को� 으न था आपका finan, और आपना अपतrepare गवाग वाथदा कर शाहाँ अप्लाउ ज़़ाद येी और उब पूद्चमतर मैंना बगलता ग़ाद कर शाहाँ बूद्ची कैपारप्लाउ लोगा। ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ  वश्ओती श्पारते जाच्टन अप औजमे जेडिये बासे आफ जाच्टन, यो आद गर नहीं वि off, another important aspect here is 100th subsection two of hundred also says appeal lies from an appellate decree passed exportage not withstanding the judgment being passed exportage you still have a right to come under section hundred provided 101 is taken care of that is if the case involves a substantial question of law this is an important aspect we generally ignore उ police उ police प्이�ठसख स्बश्छंतरीम एकंगा распjaw शबश्छंतरी प्शalthen शबशच्च्च्च्च्च्च्च्च्च्च्चच्च्च्चच्च ceux awfullyistles अब आप उग Llati शबश्चंतरीम, क् क garage छइधoses to, sinceईदौआ औधू, Cath घर stamping. आप the ज़़ houses remains is भी सज़ इन्ज़ बज़ा. आँ आँ अशाक्ष्र के वहाित कोगट ईजिक आखुर पूला कोट आप आप यतना, अख्च कापष़ कोट औगिट गटा आप यतना, अख्च कोट आप यतना आप यतना। Creatise the notion which is also mentioned that यतना। औगिट आप आप यतना। � fatto inação  beschäft  Sleeping  ambθε ăn cuatro, ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ � missed rians  attached ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ ॐ road m ve ॐ ॐ sarestrial were यattend the issues in the answer question of law that is framed by ad objectives and given in the regular second appeal I'm almost puzzled, but it is not mandatory. .  meist,  COB,  लईंए कर्वगढी मागजा दो ती को आहीघन आही चेगे ज़ी  कूट कोग कन औगना सोद  आर कि शहा है, एक घब आस कार गखजा ती, से लेँ हूँक � presented  이게 इस चर्ज Orig у under the ends of law that are framed thi apel into asking for how the language is completed in the afternoon of this session for that session. तो मैं के मुर्चाते खुर्ते ही आपाशाव्बाना, करे बावमात की हैं, जो तो रहा वाद्ते हैं, आपावावावावावा, औक भी आपावावावावा, तो तो शागा यान न सब़े ऑच्चूचाते हैं। द़ान मुआद ॐ death of voting Well विस आई द़างग कोबूड enfantsез आई ख़िल दी पर शबई क Chel पका सबlon, तो ज सती कराह सब कहदी के श्फपना कogen, वसकमा के लेखना फोडenda लिएद़ा बीया ज़ागँ ईफेर लिएदर छरु तो बदे बाश्ठाड़ और realizedWAN Goo औचरिय खमाझद ल़कप्य光 आहाए थो रह मुँरिट़िय सू partnering अछम साप भिदी हे है। वेल Finished रबइज़ोय Hope. � Becky मुले tenha देL. य اور सब आजद रप श्वर, भो मैं याले वार आपisty ड़ग, बाहाँ।। शोल ऴासरहतर, वूमुर याले दा Want. मैं महना साठा और शब धखें dream ivil revena to a conclusion that's some substantial question of law and formulate it. But, nevertheless, even though it is formulated by the court itself, the respondent has got every right to argue that the case does not involve substantial question of law, may be the High Court has formulated it. Still you can say look at the time of admission, this Court has formulated this substantial question of law, but I am here to convince the court that this substantial question of law does not exist at all and this case does not involve this substantial question of law. Look at the wonderful arrangement that's given made here in this provision. Really it's very laudable effort of the legislators. So high court formulates the substantial question of law. Still I can say look this is not the substantial question of law involved in this case. Let me argue. So on the respondents side we can always make this effort. Now you see then whether the court should dismiss the case need not be because there is proviso to section 105. You please see this proviso to subsection 105. It says court can hear the appeal on any other question not formulated by it. If it is satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law but after recording reasons court formulates substantial question of law. I as an advocate for the respondent come forward and say look this substantial question of law do not arise at all. Then the appellate council can still persuade the court to say maybe respondent is right these substantial questions of law do not arise but look these substantial question of law this substantial question of law arises or these substantial questions of law arise. Can you please consider this or the court on its own may say look maybe the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission do not arise as you say but these questions of law arise. So I will record reasons that I am satisfied that the case involves such other substantial question of law so it can modify or it can add additional substantial questions of law also. This is one area where we have to be very careful and we can be persuasive and we can try to convince the court because many a times what happens is we just ignore section 100 sub plus five and also we ignore proviso to section 105 this is one aspect I would like to request. So now if we have to remember five steps may have to be remembered number one appeal second appeal regular second appeal lies only when there is substantial question of law otherwise the answer is strict no RSA can also be filed against an exporter degree third the memorandum of appeal should contain the substantial question of law that you according to you which is involved in the case fourth the high court should be satisfied that there exists substantial question of law which is involved in the case and high court should formulate the substantial question of law and respondent has got a right to argue that the case does not involve such substantial question of law at all now what was this section 100 before amendment we should see before amendment the subset the section 100 CPC permitted us to go on second appeal if the decision given by the courts below is contrary to law or the decision had failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law and there was substantial error or defect in the procedure please see these were the aspects that were there section in section 100 before amendment why I am stressing on this aspect is many a times we argue the procedure about procedurally regularities committed by the courts below now post amendment this is not permissible at all any procedural irregularity look this document is not marked that is not done this is not done everything all that procedural irregularities are procedural error or defect in the procedure cannot be considered as a point to consider your as regular second appeal these were available before amendment post amendment these provisions are not available this is not available now you see I refer to two judgments anthosh hasari's judgment and hero minow's judgment they brought in a veil of change in the understanding of substantial question of law there before that I would like to request you to consider those of you who are interested in general reading please read 54th report of law commission of India there are several solutions given in respect of various other provisions of law but about section 100 there is a specific reasoning given you have to go through that see search for absolute truth is something I as a plaintiff will be satisfied only when from first court to last court if the court says plaintiff suit has to be decreed the defendant would always be according to the defendant the defendant would always be satisfied only if the plaintiff suit is dismissed from the first court to the last court wherever there is a change the other person will take it to the next step how long can we go how far should we go the search for the absolute truth in the administration of justice it may be laudable but nevertheless one point has to be considered by everyone there has to be a reasonable restraint in other words this search for absolute truth I am right I am right I am convinced so much as a plaintiff I want everyone also to be convinced but we have to reconcile with doctrine of finality if we do not reconcile with doctrine of finality what happens is there can never be certainty to law why people come to law I and my opponent fight with each other we don't agree on something or there is no consensus between us we want somebody else to decide who has to decide the first court decides not agreeable second court not agreeable then third court how long you want to take it there has to be a full stop somewhere that's where the court said that the largest larger interest of administration of justice must prevail over litigants individual interest that's where the section 100 was amended and that amendment is according to me I am speaking for myself is wonderful it is juristically sound and it's also pragmatically completely wise that's where we need to consider see first appeal may be an unqualified right if you file suit civil suit then regular appeal will be filed it may be an unqualified right but as far as it comes to second appeal the answer is a strict no it is not an unqualified right it's more in the sort of suck it's like a luxury only if you can afford then in order to achieve it you have to follow strictly what the law requires us to do with this background let us see now you see can the court travel beyond the grounds specified in section 100 the answer is a clear no if you read the judgment in the koppisati's case 2009 4 sec 244 the court said the legislative intention in bringing an amendment to section 100 was so clear that it never wanted the second appeal to be a third trial on facts please see how nicely they have used these expressions it never wanted the second appeal to be third tear on facts or one more dice in the gamble how beautifully they have used okay i have lost there let me try high court also no if you have no substantial question of law supporting you which is involved in the case you can't play here because it is not a dice in the gamble one more dice in the gamble no way that's where they said you can't travel beyond the ground specified under section 100 they also said in manohar laws case they said you cannot defeat the purpose of section 100 if you read the number of citations of course my book has got several citations hundreds of citations i have referred to several citations are there which says that high courts are forgetting or ignoring the purpose or objective behind section 100 which should not be done is what is a strict mandate given by the supreme court now you see if you see gurudev kaur and others versus khaki and others case 2007 one scc 546 the court in this case supreme court has referred to what is stated by the judicial committee of the privy council in 1890 look at this how nicely our courts are functioning only when we read several judgments you know you feel proud about the journey we have gone through and how we are taking law how the law is evolving from one stage to another from 1892 this 2007 how nicely the court has tried to do arguments you please see it has a reference to what is stated by the judicial committee of privy council in 1890 in this case it's a wonderful judgment i request the youngsters to read this the upwards court said an rsa regular second appeal cannot lie on erroneous finding of fact however gross or inexcusable the error may be please see here there is a finding of fact which you feel that it is completely erroneous this fact this finding of fact given by the trial court is or the lower applied court confirmed by the lower applied court is completely erroneous it may be erroneous it may be inexcusable both the judges have gone wrong nevertheless it does not give you power to come in appeal in second appeal if the court ordered the supreme court in this case warned that a high court cannot add or enlarge the scope of section 100 as stated in cpc whatever is there you have to strictly go by it you can't enlarge the scope look there is an erroneous finding of fact you can't what section 100 what it says i refer to five stages what how it has to be done you go strictly by that only when it involves a substantial question of law and it formulates a substantial question of law it can go ahead with the sex the second appeal otherwise on erroneous finding of facts you cannot knock the door of the second appeal this is one thing that we have to be very careful now you see this uh uh virayamals case is one case where the court said the objective intended by the legislature is frustrated look at this we argue something and the courts pass some order but ultimately when the matter goes to supreme court supreme court state something else supreme court says the objective that is intended to be achieved by amendment is completely frustrated whatever was there before amendment is many a times taken care of and submitted by us before this uh second appellate court and the second second appellate court in many instances has considered them and the supreme court has satisfied those orders because court said liberal construction is not permitted liberal construction of what of section 100 that's where we should be very careful again in municipal committee hosherpur this is a wonderful judgment uh 2013 sse 216 there the court says that intent of legislature you cannot ignore and you cannot enlarge the scope of section 100 this is another aspect and this case you have to uh be thorough with because this stay this judgment for the first time said formulating a substantial question of law is sign quernan for any regular second appeal that means we are coming across several situations of course i'm also benefited many a times i was also benefited when i appear for the uh appellate we say this is what it is this is what it is let the court will say let us issue notice then we'll say swami uh my lord an interim order may kindly be passed the court may pass an interim order also but are we right in doing so no without formulating a substantial question of law even notice cannot be issued and no stay order can be issued that is the law i'll take you through that provision also see one is cannot enlarge the scope under section 100 and sign quernan is a formulation of substantial question of law with regard to that also you have to go through this municipal committee hosherpur's case now you see forget about the presidents let us keep the presidents aside even section 101 it's a very simple section with two lines it says second appeal does not you cannot entertain a second appeal on any other grounds no other grounds any other grounds than the grounds mentioned mentioned in section 100 that means to say whatever is mentioned in section 100 you have no right to travel beyond that in fact if you read section 100 very meticulously and section 101 wherever you are appearing for the respondent you are empowered like anything wherever you are appearing for the appellant your struggle is to be very hard you have to make sincere efforts to make out a case and take it forward till the end that's where section 100 and 101 arms section 100 that's also an important aspect which you need to see now you see section 100 uses the word substantial question of law we have to clearly have in our mind the distinction between question of fact question of law and substantial question of law that's where when you are arguing for respondent you can always point out look this can only be a question of fact or this can only be a question of law but not a substantial question of law my opponent may raise these aspects so in order to ensure that i get my regular second appeal allowed i should see to it that the substantial question of law which i have stated in my memorandum of appeal or the one formulated by the high court may not tomorrow be taken out as only a question of fact or only a question of law but not a substantial question of law it is here we need to have a clear candid understanding of what's the question of fact what's the question of lot and what is a substantial question of law these three aspects are very important now you see when we see question of fact we all know that facts exist they just exist they will not have any meaning at all facts get meaning because of the surrounding circumstances and situations so what's the question of fact a question of fact is a question which has to be answered in the backdrop of the facts proof of which would depend upon evidence and consequential inferences drawn so there has to be facts there should be proof and there should be inferences then a fact question of fact will be answered by the court a question of fact derives its answer from proof or otherwise of facts which exist or do not exist we argue before the trial court we argue before the first first appellate court regular appeal under section 96 this fact does not exist at all court has come to a wrong conclusion this fact does exist court has come to an incorrect conclusion yes so based on this whether proof or otherwise of existence of fact is answered while answering question of fact but a question of fact is raised by the trial court in the form of issues in regular appeal under section 96 first appellate court or lower appellate court raises the question of fact in the form of points for consideration i always say that section 100 generally people say our regular second appeal is a subject for practice judges for lawyers practicing in the high court no lawyers practicing the trial court lawyers practicing in the regular appeal courts appellate there should also be knowing about section 100 otherwise tomorrow the matter will go again is their clients if these take case these things are not taken care of if you do not take care of facts in the first two courts the second court that is the first appellate court is the last court of facts there afterwards we can't do anything with regard to facts so how do we do it while formulating uh while the we we should cultivate the habit of giving draft issues or when the issues are formed formulated by the court we should see whether the burden is put or the owners is shifted to a wrong person then we need to get it clarified we need to get it struck off and we we request we should request the court to modify these are aspects that we need to consider otherwise when you go to regular second appeal this will be a herculean task now you see a question of a fact generally are raised by way of issues or points for consideration by the first appellate court these aspects will not be touched majority of the cases where in rarest of rare circumstance accepting in rarest of rare circumstances high court will not touch into these aspects at all but so this we have to keep it aside we have to put it in bracket we have to work on these aspects in the two courts below next let us see what's the question of law a question of law is one which the court is bound to answer only in accordance with rule of law i cannot say this is the law this should have been law this was the law no what is the law applicable law based on that only i as a judge can answer a question of law it is court is bound to answer only within the framework of rule of law so how does a court answer a question of law court answers a question of law which is already authoritatively answered by law itself that means this precedent is like this supreme court has said like this larger bench has said like this privy council has said this authoritatively stated statute itself has stated they will say section 101 says no other ground in this case no other ground which is there under section 100 all other grounds which are prescribed under section 100 are taken so section 101 puts a limitation on the court so i cannot travel beyond the court sorry beyond the is statutory provision so i that this court is of the opinion that this court in this case does not involve substantial question of law at all so when a question of law has to be answered court will say that it will answer based on what is already authoritatively answered by the law itself now you please see question of law what question of law may be related to application of law interpretation of law or what the relevant law is these three combinations the first court also deals with questions of law the second court that is the regular appell also deals with these aspects now let us see what would be the mixed question of law and fact or question of mixed law and fact they will say this question of mixed law and fact is very difficult only when you are able to decipher or dissect between question of fact and question of law you can take it to the high court for example repeatedly we have heard the supreme court state supreme court in several cases that limitation is a mixed question of law in fact nevertheless if you want to address on that point in a second appeal you have to make out a clear case that look as far as fact is concerned i am not here as far as law is concerned i am here please consider this the limitation in this set of facts should have been so many years but not so many years this is how we distinguish between um a question of fact and question of law and decipher it when it is a question of mixed law in fact it is also called as mixed question of law in fact see one thing in the rarest of rare cases we come across this for particularly in case in the situations where limit the question of limitation is there and you want to take it as a substantial question of law the court will immediately say no look this is a mixed question of this is a mixed question of law in fact how do you overcome this see what is the mixed question of law in fact you have to understand in a mixed question of law in fact facts are admitted no dispute about it from both sides and rule of law applicable is also undisputed facts are admitted applicable rule of law is undisputed then what is the problem then whether the rule of law is correctly applied to the established facts or not is the question please see how difficult it is rule of law applicable is correctly applied or not that is where i will take you through some judgments where it says misinterpretation or misreading of judgments of judgments so here you have to bring it within the framework of rule of law not being correctly applied to established facts then you can say that this case has to be admitted that is where you have to pursue at the court now you say if you want to know the distinction between law question of sorry facts question of fact question of law etc this decision may be helpful 1997 one scr 748 so the ink versus direct of investigation in research is a wonderful judgment that you should be going through i request all of you to read i request the youngsters to read from in the court of from top to bottom you have to read then you will get to know understand the facts and circumstances and how the law is laid down or how the law has evolved all those things you will be able to note down now you see how do you identify sql i always tell it must be i think it is the daftari only and he said half the lawsuits are either one in the office of the advocate or lost in the office of the advocate look at this so if we fail to whenever someone comes to us and request us to draft a regular second appeal and file it and move it for admission we do it in haste but we need to work hard we have to be patient enough to identify that the case involves sql substantial question of law and then only proceed for them see what is how to identify a substantial question of law if you read hero we know you will get wonderful insight into this aspect and santosh hazari's case also gives wonderful insight nevertheless i have jotted down some i mean main points here you know what a question of fact and what a question of law the word substantial is prefix to question of law if it is just question of law no because before amendment also this question of law was there if you that's where i told you to read section hundred before amendment and after amendment before amendment also section hundred was there there that use of question of law that expression is there but the expression substantial was not there section hundred post amendment has a prefix of substantial to the expression question of law so what is substantial substantial means which must be actual which must be real which must be existing it should be there and it should not be something which is seeming it is seemingly there it may be there it's somewhere there no it should be evident and it should not be imaginary it should not be illusive also these are all not my words these are all used in several cases different cases these words are used so if it is just imaginary if you imagine that there is that is substantial question of law no you have to work and find out what exactly is the substantial question of law let us see how we can understand what exactly is the substantial question of law how to identify if you are for respondent you have to identify whether there is sql substantial question of law as claimed by the appellant because you have an opportunity to oppose that this case does not involve substantial question of law at all that's where if you are for respondent also you should know how to identify sql or absence of substantial question of law and if you are for appellant you should definitely identify that there in the case involves substantial question of law how to identify it should be a question of law number one and it should directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties there may be so many legal issues involved in a case but what is that one particular question of law which affects the rights of the parties if it is not properly interpreted or understood error of law error of law is a substantial question of law so you have to bring it within that but that should directly and substantially affect the rights of the parties for example a daughter's right to equal share in the property post amendment of 2005 if this provision is not properly understood what will happen if my husband has come from has left his parents everyone got married to me and come this side we don't have children i die will my husband have some right in the properties that i have got from my parents side may not be so what is that if this particular legal proposition is not properly interpreted or if it is misinterpreted or misread probably the substantial right of the party gets affected it's under this circumstances the court said a substantial question of law is one we should directly and substantially affect the right of the parties when we are framing that particular single question you know you should watch whether it it caters to this need then it should not be covered by supreme court decision it's already a subtle law the court has applied it you can't say court has applied this law yes it should apply that law privy council has said so high court is sorry the lower courts are bound by that supreme court has said it is bound by that larger bench decisions of the high courts are there that's why the lower applet court has given a decision in that manner you can't say look following that decision this this judgment has come no you can't say that because it is already covered and it's a settled position of law there you do not have a right but you have a right in situations where it is gray gray areas we say it's debatable it's not previously settled either by the apex court or by the privy council or by any larger benches then you can always put your hands on that supposing you are practicing in one particular high court of one particular state the other high court has taken some other view then you can say look this particular high court has taken this view i would like to request the court and i would like to pursue in this honorable court also to take similar view that right you will have it should be a debatable issue and you should not have been previously settled so whether you can bring it within that framework also you can see and a substantial question of law cannot be a question which is simply of academic importance it should be a question of law which if answered in one way or the other should affect the decision of the case i answer this question like this the decision is in favor of plaintiff i answer i as a judge answer this question like this the decision will be in favor of defendant this is how you should frame a substantial question of law which will definitely decide the fate of either of the parties very crafting of substantial question of law is very important and most important thing here is that it must arise from the findings of the court below that's where where you are appearing for respondents you will take the judge through the findings of the first court and the next court look the findings on x y z points for this the the points for consideration of the appellate court under section 96 by Alexis in its jurisdiction was like this never never from these questions from these findings you can get a question of law much less a substantial question of law that's how your argument will be if you are appearing on the respondent side so it's always necessary that we go through the judgment of the trial court and first appellate court thread the bear before going to formulate substantial question of law in our memorandum of appeal or many a times with utmost respect to the judiciary i would like to say the court may formulate some substantial question of law still you can pursue the court may lord probably these questions may not arise from the findings of the courts below may request the honorable court to kindly consider framing this question or any other question with at most humility at your command you can always request the court otherwise what happens is if there is an error in the formulation of question substantial question of law itself the entire thing will go you will write that there are several judgments which says that the substantial question of law must arise from the findings of the court below high court may formulate a substantial question of law but if it does not arise from the findings of the courts below then you you will unless i mean you will lose the case that's where we can always we should be prepared to persuade the court and we should assist the court i would rather say we should assist the court in such a way that these are the findings from these findings these are the findings of the courts below you place it before the court may be the ones formulated by you may not be acceptable to the court but nevertheless court high court will not go wrong and it will formulate the questions based on the findings of the courts below that's where you have to be very careful i think time itself is i mean seven we have come to section seven is it okay fine ma'am we can continue we can continue another five ten minutes five minutes no i should ma'am we can take the question thereafter okay see one more judgment that you can see is buddha reddy chandraya versus arigela lakshmi's case if you want to know what's not substantial question of law you have to go through this judgment a a r 2008 s c 3 it this judgment is also a wonderful judgment i request you to consider see next is construction of a document this is a very very powerful tool with you to see to it that the regular second appeal gets admitted read n number of judgments on this construction of document see an interpretation of a document which goes to the root of the title of a party gives rise to substantial question of law construction of a document means interpretation misinterpretation reading misreading all those things will fall how to read a document how to understand the document how to interpret a document all these aspects that's where construction of a document misreading misinterpreting of a document chandrasekaran's case is a p chandrasekaran's case is a classic example a a r 2007 s c 2306 and more than anything else this chunilal mehta's case has been repeatedly referred to in many cases so if the construction of the document is neither simple nor free from doubt then it gives rise to substantial question of law chunilal mehta's case is prior to amendment 1976 and amendment but nevertheless courts have always relied upon this judgment so that's where in in many cases where we rely upon agreements and several clauses of their contractual matters there and heavy stakes matters are involved where they agreement itself runs into several pages and several clauses or it may be a single page agreement but with different clauses which are not free from doubt the interpretation of which can be either way then you have a substantial question of law see hero vino's case beautifully says inference of fact from recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact in a in any document we say so and so is the wife of so and so and so and so is the son of so and so so this property is sold this property is purchased all those things these are all facts that's a question of fact inference of fact but legal effect of terms of fact that that is a question of law terms of document what is a legal effect of terms of the document that's a question of law so while formulating a substantial question of law you can say exhibit p14 this is this document the recitals are like this the contents of documents are like this of course these are all questions of fact but what is legal effect of these terms of document for that you have to mention then you will take that in your grounds you have to mention that and then you have to take it forward and formulate it in two lines as a substantial question of law see what is not a substantial question of law many a times we argue so many things before the first second a plate code this aspect has not been considered this aspect has not been considered they may have some bearing but it is not something which will ultimately decide the actual issue between the parties then the courts are not bound by that let us not waste our time on these aspects what is substantially important but not just co-laterally or incidentally probably she has lost the signal she is just re-logging in somehow there is power cut at her place so she is saying that she is going to log in through the dongle as well as through her mobile just be patient for two minutes meanwhile you can post the questions on the chat box so that once sushila madam joins in so we can take the questions after the session those who are watching us live on the youtube and the facebook they can also post their questions here yes sorry there was some yes ma'am you can start off yes so i was just taking you through these aspects in another session some other time we will go through some judgments and discuss as to what can be done if there is concurrent findings against us and how to avoid the when the high court can ignore the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and still allow the second appeal this is one aspect we need to consider and second thing that we need to understand here is as far as regular second appeals are concerned is when can we request the court to formulate substantial question of law it cannot be supposing while draft while dictating the judgment attempts the courts formulate substantial question of law it is impermissible even though the judgment may be in our favor we should always request the court going by 100 sub class 5 and several judgments are there we should always tell the court request the court that because of n number of judgments it cannot be simultaneously proceeded with formulation of substantial question of law cannot be simultaneously done along with dictating the judgment so it should be formulated first so that the parties are informed about it and they may have to be given an opportunity and second thing that's one more thing that you need to consider here is a regular second appeal cannot be dismissed on merits in the absence of the appellant or the party there are judgments to that effect also and perversity is one of the very very important aspect if you can bring the case that there is a perversity in the findings of the courts below or court below then definitely a substantial question of law arises wherever there is perversity because perversity per se itself per se is a substantial question of law so these are all some aspects I would like to reinforce here I'm sorry that there was some inconvenience because of the technical glitch I'm extremely thankful to Mr. Vikas for giving this opportunity to me well we are also thankful to you and to Vikram and associate who was the connecting point we have just received one message by Santosh Gavde how to avoid cost being divided in the second appeal which was never levied at the first appellate stage while allowing amendments in the appeal window in fact these are all discretionary aspects you can't avoid these are all aspects which the courts will have to take a I mean call upon there is no particular law as per it is also a court craft how you handle the situation at that particular point of time in fact in one of the judgments supreme court has said that the there was no substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal then the court gave n number of days permitted the party to incorporate those questions of law it gave n number of things supposing it is not complied with then the court will have to impose cost in fact it goes a further step forward and says that the notices on admission of a case should also include substantial questions of law but in karnataka we don't have that practice we get a get a notice supposing the case is admitted we don't get what are the substantial questions of law on which it is admitted but in one of the judgments supreme court has said the notices can also will also have to include the substantial question of law so that the party will know as per our practice in pinjabharayana I quote we have to formulate the substantial of questions of law within the grounds of appeal itself that we will we are also doing but when the notice is signed to the other side will the notice also have that as a part of we believe that once you would receive the grounds you are already put to notice to that what if the court has formulated different question of law that will be a situation normally that's where the supreme court's idea was to see to eat that the substantial question of law formulated by court can also be part of the notice in one case that is there it's okay in that question normally when the interim order is recorded it says that this is the contention raise and beyond that this is also contention raised mean you normally put to notice so thank you ma'am okay at this one question how to overcome with the court formal how to overcome when the court formulates question of law in the interest of justice interest of just see that's what the courts have said if you go through several judgments some of the substantial questions of law formulated by the courts are termed as no questions of law much less substantial questions of law by the supreme court if you go through several judgments when you read several judgments you will come across oh this is not a question of law this is not a question of law this is not a substantial it may be a question of law but not a substantial question of law so you can't do anything but you have to gently request the court that look this is what it is substantial question of law it is not a blanket practice we can't make use of such words rather we can only request the court because you have an opportunity as a respondent you can always argue maybe the courts with you respect courts have formulated question of law but law permits you to argue that those questions do not arise at all you can always argue that opportunity is given to you yeah gavita wants to ask the question probably section will prevail over one section no way good evening ma'am as usual wonderful session thank you vikas ji the the issue i just wanted to put forward here is that some of the courts have the practice of just saying that in the interest of justice or just saying that like to bring the overall finality to the issue i am bringing up this question of fact question of fact will not say question of law only no they will they will they will term it as question of law but it will be actually a question of fact that that is for you to substantiate when when you receive a notice when you are requesting the court to consider then you will gently say look i have this power under section hundred it specifically gives me a power as an advocate for the respondent or i am a respondent myself i will i may be permitted to pursue the court to say that the question formulated by the court does not fall under the category of question of law or substantial question of law number one even if it is a substantial question of law it is not involved in the case that's where this is a session which has to go for four or five i mean five parts we have to do what is involved that itself supreme court has said it is not just substantial question of law it should be involved in the case exactly exactly that's what i was just trying to put it how to make the such kind of a judgment or such kind of a presumption of the judge of the court as redundant or it should there's a bar where we can play the court in its wisdom has formulated some question of law it is for you to persuade the court look this question of law does not arise or even if it arises it it is not involved in the case on hand these are the two opportunities for you it is for you it is not you can't blame the court it's not the blaming the court it it's that even in the practice regular practice when we just say the court this under section 100 this court is restricted with only the substantial question of law and this is what is being presented and even when we present the written statement counter or the written arguments it comes back with the judgment saying that in the interest of uh just bringing a finality to this issue we are taking this off then if you are agreed you have to go section 136 is a very sorry article 136 is a very very limited scope if you go in slp against concurrent judgments it's very difficult very very difficult 136 supreme court uh exercises power where what you say is correct otherwise it's a very narrow margin thank you thank you ma'am for the insightful session as usual people will have too many takes away from the present session and as you shared that it will take four five sessions you would look forward for that insightful session before we part for the day i will request ma'am to share the book again and i will ask her to share the link so that we can post it on the whatsapp groups and the telegram groups if anybody wants to buy the book uh written by ma'am yeah there's a substantial question of law by sushila senior advocate from karnataka high court so once again on behalf of beyond law clc and recruitment associates we thank ma'am sushila senior advocate a trained mediator author and a columnist for sharing her insights thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed and tomorrow we have a session since we have the topic of our sessions are known as beyond law clc so tomorrow we speak on how to improve the english very basic topics because a lot of young lawyers and aspirants for judiciary and other exams request us to take english tomorrow will be right propositions and right language by mr basant patwardhan so do stay connected with us tomorrow at 6 p.m everyone