Second appeal grounds are limited by statute; an erroneous factual finding is not a procedural defect and cannot be reopened.

A second appeal was confined to the specific grounds stated in Section 584 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that provision could not be expanded by interpretation. An erroneous finding of fact was held to be distinct from an error or defect in procedure. Where the first appellate court had before it evidence properly admissible for its consideration, its factual finding was final and could not be reopened in second appeal merely because it was said to be wrong or based on a misreading of evidence. The challenge to the lower appellate court's factual determination therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second appeal could be entertained on the ground that the lower appellate court had reached an erroneous finding of fact by misapprehending the evidence, treating that error as a substantial error or defect in procedure under Section 584 of the Civil Procedure Code, Act XIV of 1882.

Analysis: The only grounds of second appeal were those specifically stated in Section 584. The provision could not be enlarged by judicial interpretation. An erroneous finding of fact is distinct from an error or defect in procedure. Where the first appellate court had before it evidence proper for its consideration, its finding on fact was final and could not be reopened in second appeal merely because the conclusion was said to be wrong or based on an alleged misreading of evidence.

Conclusion: The objection to the finding of fact was not a permissible ground for second appeal, and the challenge to the lower appellate court's factual determination failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal lies only on the grounds expressly specified by the governing provision, and an erroneous finding of fact, however serious, does not amount to an error or defect in procedure when the appellate court had proper evidence before it.

---