Substantial question of law required before second appeal interference with concurrent findings of fact

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact only after first formulating a substantial question of law; without that jurisdictional foundation, it cannot decide the appeal on merits. The SC found that the High Court had interfered without identifying any such question and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal in that form. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal after hearing both sides on the question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without formulating a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The High Court had interfered with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal without first formulating any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Jurisdiction in second appeal can be exercised only when the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law arises. Since no such question had been formulated, the High Court lacked the jurisdictional basis to decide the second appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the second appeal was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal after affording both sides an opportunity to address the question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless it first formulates and identifies a substantial question of law as the jurisdictional foundation for the appeal.

---