Second appeal maintainability under Punjab Courts Act and interference for no-evidence findings were upheld on procedural defects.

Second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 were treated as maintainable despite an objection based on amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because that objection was not pressed and the statutory second-appeal grounds remained controlling. Interference with the first appellate decree was justified where the appellate court went beyond the pleadings and issues, treated sale deed and jamabandi entries as invalid without evidentiary foundation, and relied on suspicion rather than record evidence. Findings based on no evidence and substantial procedural defect were held unsustainable, so the trial court's dismissal of the suit stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal was maintainable under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 despite the objection based on the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court's decree on the ground that its findings were based on no evidence and involved procedural error.

Issue (i): Whether the second appeal was maintainable under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 despite the objection based on the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The objection to maintainability under the amended Section 100 of the Code was not pressed. The governing provision was therefore examined with reference to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal was treated as controlled by the statutory grounds in Section 41(1), and the amended Code did not displace that jurisdiction on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The second appeal was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court's decree on the ground that its findings were based on no evidence and involved procedural error.

Analysis: The first appellate court had travelled beyond the pleadings and issues by treating the sale deed and jamabandi entries as invalid or forged without a proper basis in the record. The plaintiff produced no revenue record or departmental evidence to support possession or evacuee-land status, while the appellate findings rested on suspicion rather than evidence. Such findings were treated as suffering from substantial error and defect in procedure, and as unsustainable on the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the first appellate court's decree.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's challenge failed, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal is maintainable where the first appellate court's decree is founded on no evidence, on matters not pleaded or put in issue, or on a substantial procedural defect, since such errors fall within the statutory grounds for interference in second appeal.

---