Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 109,110

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----Ss. 109 & 110-Expression "appeal must involve some substantial question of law" at end of S. 110-Question of law need not necessarily be of general or public importance-Such question would be substantial even if it affects dispute between parties only-Question: Whether on evidence property (worth lakhs of rupees) could be held to be benami-Held, to be complicated and not free from doubt in circumstances of case Case certified to be fit for appeal to Supreme Court Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58.   Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. A I R 1962 S C 1314 and Raghunath Prassad Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh A I R 1927 P C 110 ref.   Date of hearing: 5th January 1965.   JUDGMENT   WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-----In the case the only objection, raised by Mr. Dingomal the learned counsel for the respondent is that the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench having affirm c, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is not a fit case in which this Court should grant a certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, under section 110, C. P. C. It is conceded on both sides that the condition regarding the valuation is satisfied and the property in dispute is of more than Rs. 20,000.   Mr. Dingomal the learned counsel contended that only in such cases this Court iscompetent to grant certificate where there is a substantial question of law. He further contended that there is a concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts and no substantial question of law is involved in the matter in dispute. On the other hand Mr. Sirajur Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Letters Patent Bench did not consider at all the question of limitation and estoppel raised in the grounds of appeal and in the issues struck in the trial Court. He further contended that even on the finding of fact arrived at by the learned two Courts it cannot be held that the property in dispute was a benami and its real owner was the respondent.   Formerly the view taken by the High Courts in this sub-continent was that…