Second appeal limits under Section 100 CPC bar reversal of concurrent facts without a substantial question of law.

In second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact cannot be reversed unless such a question is formulated and decided, so the impugned judgments were unsustainable for non-compliance. Inordinate delay between hearing and pronouncement of judgment can also justify interference because it raises concern that the issues were not properly appreciated, and may warrant setting aside and remitting the matter without a merits determination. The High Court judgments were therefore set aside and the matters remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reverse concurrent findings of fact without formulating and deciding a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the long delay in delivery of the High Court judgment furnished an independent ground for interference.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reverse concurrent findings of fact without formulating and deciding a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 100 CPC confines the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law. After the 1976 amendment, the memorandum of appeal must state the substantial question of law, the High Court must formulate it if satisfied that such a question arises, and the appeal must be heard on the question so formulated. A reversal of concurrent findings of fact without such formulation is outside the jurisdiction permitted by the provision.

Conclusion: The impugned second appeal judgments could not be sustained for non-compliance with Section 100 CPC.

Issue (ii): whether the long delay in delivery of the High Court judgment furnished an independent ground for interference.

Analysis: An inordinate delay between hearing and pronouncement of judgment creates a legitimate concern that the arguments and issues may not have been properly reflected or appreciated. Such delay can justify setting aside the judgment and remitting the matter for fresh decision, without expressing any conclusion on the merits.

Conclusion: The delay in pronouncement also supported interference with the High Court judgments.

Final Conclusion: The High Court judgments were unsustainable and the matters were sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless it first formulates and decides a substantial question of law; a judgment delivered after inordinate delay may independently justify setting aside and remanding the matter.

---