Second appeal jurisdiction requires a substantial question of law; sympathy cannot cure repeated failure to lead evidence.

In second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law, and such a question must be formulated before it can reverse concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that interference without following this statutory mandate was impermissible and that relief could not be granted on sympathy when the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to lead evidence despite adequate ities. The trial court was justified in closing evidence and dismissing the suit, and the High Court's remand and grant of further opportunity were unsustainable in law. The judgment was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings and remanding the suit without first formulating a substantial question of law, and in granting relief to the plaintiff despite repeated failures to adduce evidence.

Analysis: Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court's second appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law, and formulation of such a question is a condition precedent to hearing and deciding the appeal. Reversal of concurrent findings without complying with this mandate is impermissible. The plaintiff was given repeated opportunities to lead evidence, yet failed to do so on three occasions. The trial court, therefore, acted within procedural bounds in closing evidence and dismissing the suit. The High Court's interference on grounds of sympathy could not override the plaintiff's own default, and the grant of further opportunity was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment was unsustainable in law and was set aside. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, a High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings without first formulating and deciding a substantial question of law, and a party that fails to produce evidence despite adequate opportunities is not entitled to indulgence in appeal on sympathetic grounds.

---