1999 (4) TMI 600 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation and application of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure post-amendment.

The judgment discusses the liberal interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure post-amendment, emphasizing the need to strictly adhere to the requirement of a substantial question of law for filing a second appeal. It highlights the importance of formulating and addressing substantial questions of law in the appeal process to ensure fair trial and expedite civil suits. The judgment underscores that the right of appeal is a statutory right that must be regulated in accordance with the law in force at the relevant time, and courts cannot add to or enlarge the grounds for a second appeal. It distinguishes between questions of law and substantial questions of law, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed unless based on erroneous grounds or inadmissible evidence. The judgment also cites legal precedents to define what constitutes a substantial question of law, emphasizing the need for general public importance or direct impact on parties' rights for a question to qualify as substantial.

The judgment further delves into the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals, stating that the High Court cannot investigate the grounds of the last court of fact and must respect the lower appellate court's findings unless they are erroneous or contrary to legal principles. It clarifies that the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the first appellate court unless there are clear errors of law or procedure. The judgment also addresses the scenario where a point of law has already been decided by a higher court, highlighting that a wrong application of law on facts does not constitute a substantial question of law. It emphasizes that mere appreciation of facts or evidence does not raise a substantial question of law unless the lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction or made a legal error.

In the specific case discussed in the judgment, the High Court wrongly applied the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by disturbing the findings of fact of the first appellate court without adhering to the statutory limitations. The judgment details the facts of the case involving a suit for specific performance, where the lower appellate court's findings were based on evidence and not deemed perverse. It criticizes the High Court's assessment of the evidence and emphasizes that no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal, warranting interference under Section 100. Consequently, the judgment allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and restoring the first appellate court's judgment with costs throughout.