Concurrent factual findings cannot be challenged in second appeal absent a substantial question of law.

The Respondent (Plaintiff), a wholesale textile dealer, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,86,849/- against the Appellant (Defendant), a retail shopkeeper, based on goods supplied via eight specific invoices.

The Respondent alleged that three cheques issued by the Appellant were returned unpaid due to "Insufficiency of Funds".

The Appellant contended that he had already paid Rs. 1,90,000/- through various receipts and claimed a counter-recovery of Rs. 3,151/- for overpayment.

The Appellant further asserted that a shop fire in July 2014 destroyed several payment receipts.

The Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,21,351/- with 18% interest, after adjusting a proved payment of Rs. 18,000/-.

The First Appellate Court upheld the decree but modified the interest rate to 6% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The Appellant subsequently moved the High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse for failing to appreciate the Appellant’s defense regarding full and final payment.

2. Whether the present Second Appeal involves any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the CPC.

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which provides that a Second Appeal shall lie to the High Court only if the court is satisfied that the case involves a "substantial question of law".

It followed the established principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, based on the appreciation of evidence and documents, are generally binding and cannot be interfered with unless a substantial legal error is demonstrated.

The High Court observed that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had extensively re-appreciated the evidence, including the eight invoices and the receipts produced by the parties.

The Court noted that the Appellant's primary grievance was that the lower courts had not "correctly appreciated" his defense and documents.

The High Court determined that this challenge pertained entirely to findings of fact rather than law.

The Court highlighted that the Appellant failed to prove that the payments he claimed were directed toward the specific eight invoices forming the basis of the suit.

Since the evaluation of evidence and the determination of outstanding liabilities are factual inquiries, and no misapplication of legal principles was shown, the Court found no grounds to categorize the dispute as a "substantial question of law".

The concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the outstanding decretal amount were upheld. The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and all pending applications, maintaining the modified decree of the First Appellate Court.