The mistakes committed by the High Court were manifold. First, the High Court framed a question which was actually a question of fact which involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law. As a consequence, the answer given by the High Court was only a finding of fact. Next, the High Court reversed the finding of the First Appellate Court on the question of limitation, without framing a substantial question of law and without even referring to the statutory provisions. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the case on hand will not even be covered by subsections (2), (3) & (4) of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act. Even the limited rights conferred by Section 13(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act are not available to the respondent. Therefore, the High Court committed a grave error in law in granting a decree for specific performance. Para 19-21. Answer to question of limitation by High Court without framing substantial question of law and without reference to Art. 54 of the Limitation Act, held, impermissible.
Raman v. R. Natarajan, (2022) 10 SCC 143