Supreme Court on Section 103 of CPC and Findings of Fact in Second Appeals

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I am going to discuss the case of K.N. Nagarajappa & Others v. H. Narasimha Reddy, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”) that talks about power of the High Court to determine issues of fact in Second Appeals.

 

On our earlier show, we had discussed Section 100 of CPC that also dealt with Second Appeals. To know more about Section 100, you can watch our earlier episode on Second Appeals for which the link is provided in the description below.

  

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

 

The facts of the case are not relevant for the purposes of this show and hence, we would not be discussing them. But before adverting any further, it would be profitable to know that S. 100 of CPC deals with appeals from appellate decrees in cases where a decree has been passed by the First Appellate Court. It 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.

 

On the other hand, Section 103 of CPC provides that “in any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal” that has either not been determined or has been wrongly determined by the Courts below.

 

In order to understand S. 103 in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court noted that normally, “the findings of the first appellate court are final” but the High Court can interfere with the findings of the Court below “if the findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage the conscience of the court” or where the findings of fact require interference in accordance with Section 103 of CPC.

 

Secondly, the Court considered the judgment of Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Bisaram, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 319, wherein it was held that power under S. 103 of CPC can be exercised “when an issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal has not been determined” or “when an issue of fact has been wrongly determined”, by the Courts below.

 

And lastly, the Court cited the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2010) 13 SCC 216, wherein following important points were laid down: -

 

a. “Section 103 CPC is not an exception to Section 100 CPC nor is it meant to supplant it, rather it is to serve the same purpose.”

 

b. While exercising powers under S. 103 of CPC, the Court has to explain the perversity that it found in findings of fact by the Courts below.

 

c. Power under S. 103 of CPC has to exercised in exceptional circumstances and with circumspection “where the core question involved in the case has not been decided by the court(s) below.”

 

d. Non-consideration of relevant evidence or a similar erroneous approach can be interfered with by the High Court under S. 103 of CPC. However, concurrent findings are not to be upset in a routine and casual manner.

 

e. Even considering irrelevant material or where the findings of the court below suffer from the vice of irrationality, may attract exercise of powers under S. 103 of CPC.

 

Thus, I hope that the nature and the scope of S. 103 of CPC is clear by now. So, what are my concluding remarks.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

The Supreme Court succinctly explained that S. 103 is neither an exception to S. 100 nor is meant to supplant it. The purpose of S. 103 is to provide necessary tools to the High Court to correct the findings of fact by the Courts below that have been erroneously recorded or have not been considered. The stage of Second Appeal comes after the final verdict by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. In cases where there are concurrent findings, the Second Appellate Court must remain vigil in interfering with such findings as the same could be done only for cogent and convincing reasons.