"While deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record." : SC
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, again reminded the High Courts about their limitations while considering a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah said: "Despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law."
Substantial question of law were framed by the High court in the present case :
1. Whether the Appellate Court can reverse the findings recorded by the learned trial court without advertising to the specific finding of the trial Court?
2. Whether the judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is perverse and outcome of misreading of evidence?
However the bench stated that above aren’t substantial question of law and stated "On going through the substantial questions of law framed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the question of law framed by the High Court while deciding the second appeal, cannot be said to be substantial questions of law at all."
The bench also stated “We are constrained to observe as above and remind the High Courts the limitations under Section 100 of the CPC and again hope that High Courts would keep in mind the legal position before interfering in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure."