Supreme Court questions Bombay High Court's hasty reversal of civil court findings in second appeal

The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the Bombay High Court for hastily overturning the findings of two civil courts below it without adequately hearing the parties or examining the trial court records [Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vs Sau Sumanbhai Pandurang Petkar and ors].A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjay Karol also found that the lower courts' findings were reversed by the High Court without explaining the exceptional circumstances warranting such an action or any perversity in the findings."The haste with which the (High) Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated," the Supreme Court added..The Court explained that even if the findings over the lower civil courts are to be overturned for "perversity" by the High Court, while deciding on a second appeal, this aspect should be "unmistakeably reflected from the record."The Court added that a second appeal is not a "third trial on facts." If evidence is reappreciated at this stage, the second appellate court must properly appreciate the material on record and not just rely on an argument by a party that a finding is perverse, the top court said. "Accepting the argument of perversity merely on the submissions made and not having appreciated the record, would be unfair to the Court of first appeal," the Supreme Court said. .The top court, therefore, sent back the matter to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court for a fresh decision..The case related to a property valued at around ₹6,60,000 that the present respondent had agreed to sell to the appellant. Despite multiple attempts to execute the sale deed, the same did not materialise as the seller did not show up at the concerned office, leading to civil proceedings being initiated.The plaintiffs (intending buyers) were directed by the trial court to deposit ₹60,000 as earnest money, following which the defendants (sellers) had to execute the sale deed.The first appellate court confirmed this order after also finding that the civil suit was not barred by limitation. However, on a second appeal, the High Court set aside the two orders. The High Court's decision was challenged before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court said that a second appeal is meant to be a step-by-process and must include framing of substantial questions of law, admission of the hearing and then the hearing, before a judgment is pronounced. However, the top court found that the High Court had not followed this process and that it had not given time to the parties to present their case adequately during the hearing."As a reading of the impugned judgment reveals, these steps came to be followed, only partially, more so, ignoring the time element, inherent therein," the Supreme Court said..The Supreme Court proceeded to allow the appeal before it and the High Court was directed to hear the matter afresh..Advocates Prafulla S Kubalkar, Satyajit A Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K Mutyalwar, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Yougant Dhillon, Aishwarya Shinde and Anagha S Desai appeared for the appellant, one Suresh Ramteke. Advocates Rajat Joseph, Hrishikesh Chitaley and Vijay Kari Singh represented the respondents, led by one Suman Petkar..[Read Judgment]