Veena And Ors vs Rattan Lal And Ors

APURVA
2026.11.05 11:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

I n “Jaichand v. Sahnulal”, 2025(2) Apex Court Judgments
(SC) 336 ; Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
“ 24. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty reported in AIR
1996 S.C. 3521 , it was held by this Court that the High Court
should not reappreciate the evidence to reach another possible
view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the
first appellate Court.
25. In Kshitisn Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait
reported in (1997) 5 S.C.C. 438) , this Court held that in the
Second Appeal, the High Court should be satisfied that the case
involves a substantial question of law and not mere question of
law.
26. In Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao
Marnor reported in 1999 (2) S.C.C. 471 , this Court held:-
"Keeping in view the amendment made in 1976, the High Court
can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C. only on
the basis of substantial questions of law which are to be framed
at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and the Second
Appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such
duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered
by the High Court under Section 100 C.P.C. without following
the aforesaid procedure cannot be sustained."
27. This Court in Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan
Gujar reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 2213 held:-
APURVA
2026.11.05 11:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh

"The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the
opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that
the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were
erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of
law applicable or its settled position on the basis of
pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based
upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without
evidence."
28. It is thus clear that under Section 100, C.P.C., the High
Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the
first Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in
such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary
to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the
basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based
upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence… ”
APURVA
2026.11.05 11:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh