Second appeal jurisdiction and natural justice bar unsupported bill revision in an electricity dispute.

Section 100 CPC requires a substantial question of law as a condition precedent to a second appeal, and Section 103 CPC permits factual determination only in exceptional cases where the record is sufficient and the issue was wrongly decided below. The High Court reversed concurrent factual findings without framing the requisite question or meeting the Section 103 threshold, so its interference was unwarranted. On the electricity dispute, the revised bill was unsustainable because the Board had not installed a check meter, had given no prior notice or opportunity before revision, and had not issued the contractual show cause notice required before recovery through a supplementary bill. The appellant succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal without framing a substantial question of law and without satisfying the requirements for invoking power under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the revised electricity bill could stand in the face of violation of natural justice and the supply conditions.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes the existence and formulation of a substantial question of law a condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a second appeal. Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables determination of an issue of fact only in exceptional circumstances, where the evidence on record is sufficient and the issue has not been decided below or has been wrongly decided on a substantial question of law. The High Court reversed concurrent factual findings without framing the requisite question and without the exceptional basis required for Section 103. On the merits, the Board had not installed a check meter, had not given prior notice or opportunity before revising the bill, and had not complied with the contractual requirement of issuing a show cause notice before recovery through a supplementary bill. The concurrent findings of the courts below were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference in second appeal was unwarranted, and the revised bill could not be sustained. The decision went in favour of the appellant.

---