Second appeal procedure under Section 100 CPC requires prior framing of legal questions and respect for concurrent factual findings.

Section 100 CPC requires substantial questions of law to be framed so the parties have a fair opportunity to address them; framing or altering such questions at the hearing stage is permissible only in exceptional circumstances after notice and hearing, and the High Court's contrary approach was found improper. Concurrent findings of fact in second appeal can be disturbed only on recognised exceptional grounds such as perversity or lack of evidence, and that requires examination of the trial court record; absent such scrutiny and a legally sustainable basis, reversal is not justified. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could decide a second appeal by framing substantial questions of law at the time of hearing without affording adequate opportunity to address them under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent findings of fact without calling for and perusing the trial court record and without demonstrating perversity or another exceptional ground.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could decide a second appeal by framing substantial questions of law at the time of hearing without affording adequate opportunity to address them under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the framing of substantial questions of law, and the parties must be given a fair opportunity to meet those questions. The framing of additional or altered questions at the hearing stage is permissible only in exceptional circumstances and after notice and hearing. A second appeal is not to be decided in haste or without the parties being adequately prepared to address the questions formulated.

Conclusion: The High Court acted contrary to the mandate of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in framing and deciding the substantial questions of law without adequate opportunity to the parties.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent findings of fact without calling for and perusing the trial court record and without demonstrating perversity or another exceptional ground.

Analysis: Interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal is exceptional and cannot be made merely because another view is possible. If the findings are to be upset on grounds such as perversity, no evidence, or inadmissible evidence, the record of the trial court must be examined so that the alleged infirmity is demonstrable from the material on record. Without such examination and without identifying an exceptional legal ground, the first appellate court's findings cannot be displaced.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact without calling for the record and without establishing a legally recognised exceptional ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with the appeal allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, substantial questions of law must ordinarily be framed at admission and the parties heard on them, and concurrent findings of fact may be interfered with only on recognised exceptional grounds after examining the relevant trial court record.

---