In Brief
The appellant sought specific performance of a 1984 contract for property. The trial court granted the decree, but the first appellate court reversed it. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal on the ground that it raised no substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: interpretation of contractual terms admitted by both parties does constitute a substantial question of law. The Court remanded the case, directing the High Court to properly admit the second appeal, frame appropriate substantial questions of law, and decide the appeal on those questions in accordance with Section 100(4)–(5) of the Code and Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.