Smt Savita v. Smt Pooja
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed for want of substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; Order XII Rule 6 CPC judgment on admission requires clear, unambiguous, unequivocal admission; oral tenancy held terminated by filing of suit; security deposit claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-; rent Rs. 4,500/- per month since 2014; suit property 302/4, First Floor, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005; CS SCJ No. 48812024; RCA DJ No. 1/2025, District Judge-06, Tis Hazari Courts; substantial question of law standards per Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545 and Union of India v. Diler Singh AIR 2016 SC 3131; S.100(3) obligation to formulate questions in memorandum of appeal; Savita v. Pooja; Delhi High Court, 04.03.2025.
What did the court decide?
The High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC only when substantial questions of law arise, which must be specifically formulated when the second appeal is first heard; hearing and determination of the second appeal are strictly limited to such duly framed substantial questions of law, and sub-section (3) of Section 100 obliges the appellant to formulate them in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.