Supreme Court on Second Appeals Under Section 100 of CPC

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Balasubramanian and Another v. M. Arockiasamy (Dead) Through Lrs., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 655, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) that deals with Second Appeal in civil matters.

 

Generally speaking, there are various kinds of appeals prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. For example, Section 96 of CPC provides for appeals from original decrees that is generally referred to as ‘First Appeal.’ However, what Section 100 of CPC deals with is appeal from appellate decrees in cases where a decree has been passed by the First Appellate Court.

 

SECTION 100 OF CPC

 

Section 100 of CPC provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed by any subordinate court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. This provision further states that if during the course of the hearing of the matter, the High Court thinks that some other substantial question of law is involved in the case that is different from the one that has been formulated by it, then in such circumstances the High Court shall have all the powers to hear on such other substantial question of law. The important thing to note here is that Section 100 talks about substantial questions of law and not questions of fact, and ample power has been given to the Second Appellate Court to frame any substantial question of law that it may deem fit.

 

We will not be discussing the facts of the case at hand as the same are not required for the purposes of this show. Now, let us understand the pertinent observations by the Court that succinctly explain the scope of Section 100 of CPC.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that if substantial questions of law are framed in a case, then the High Court ought to deal with the same in Second Appeal.

 

Secondly, the Court noted that when there are concurrent findings by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, interference with such findings is not justified with unless some grave error apparent on the face of record is visible.

 

Thirdly, the Court also cautioned that restraint against interference is not an absolute rule and when there exists perversity in findings of the lower court that are not based on any cogent material or involves material irregularity in appreciation of evidence, then in such cases, the High Court may even interfere with questions of fact as well.

 

Fourthly, the Court clarified that though the ordinary rule under Section 100 is that courts are not justified in interfering with the findings of fact but depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, this rule could be modified by the Courts.

 

Fifthly, the Court stated that when the findings by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not concurrent and are divergent, then in such cases the High Court must take note of the case pleaded, evidence tendered, and the findings recorded by the two courts which were at variance with each other. In such cases, one of the views taken by the courts below is required to be approved.

 

Sixthly, the High Court while hearing a Second Appeal is free to not to answer questions of law framed by it under Section 100 of CPC if it thinks that reading of evidence recorded by the Court below was perverse as questions of law cannot arise in abstract “but in all cases will emerge from the facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait jacket formula.”

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

I think that Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is a valuable tool in the hands of the litigating parties to challenge perverse findings or perverse appreciation of evidence by the Courts. Civil procedure and laws are quite complex and such provisions have an underlying basis that “to err is human.” Judges are not gods and even they can make mistakes, more so, when the facts and circumstances are not in black and white but in hazy shades of grey. In such situations, it becomes imperative that the litigating parties are not left remediless in case justice has been denied to them by the Courts below.