https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169957 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines a second appeal to a substantial question of law, which must be formulated at admission; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb first appellate findings of fact merely because a different view is possible. Interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to mandatory legal provisions, or where jurisdiction has been wrongly assumed. Here, the first appellate court's conclusions rested on evidence, and the High Court merely reassessed that evidence. The Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law arose and the High Court's interference in second appeal was impermissible. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Oct 2025 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169957 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines a second appeal to a substantial question of law, which must be formulated at admission; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb first appellate findings of fact merely because a different view is possible. Interference is permissible only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to mandatory legal provisions, or where jurisdiction has been wrongly assumed. Here, the first appellate court's conclusions rested on evidence, and the High Court merely reassessed that evidence. The Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law arose and the High Court's interference in second appeal was impermissible. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169957