Second Appeals: Supreme Court Says High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Merely To Reach Another View

The supplied extract does not state the underlying facts, the nature of the dispute, or the procedural history of the case.

It addresses the limits on a High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly its power to interfere with factual findings of the first appellate court

Section 100 CPC confines the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law, which must be framed at admission and form the basis for the hearing and decision (Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, as quoted at para. 26).

A second appeal cannot be entertained on a mere question of law (Kshitisn Chandra Purkait v. Santhosh Kumar Purkait).

The High Court must not reappreciate evidence merely to reach another possible view of the facts (Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty).

It may interfere with the first appellate court’s factual conclusions where they are contrary to mandatory law or settled legal principles, based on inadmissible evidence, or arrived at without evidence (Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar).

The extract sets out the governing limits on second-appeal review: the High Court cannot revisit factual findings simply because another view of the evidence is possible. Its intervention must be founded on a substantial question of law and is justified only where the findings fall within the stated exceptional categories—contravention of mandatory or settled law, reliance on inadmissible evidence, or absence of evidence.

The supplied extract does not disclose how those principles were applied to the case’s particular facts.

The supplied extract does not state the Court’s final disposition or any specific order or relief.