https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173498 In a second appeal, the High Court cannot reappraise oral evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely by labelling them perverse. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines interference to the narrow limits of second appellate jurisdiction, and those limits were exceeded when the High Court undertook a fresh evaluation of evidence. The concurrent factual findings of the trial court and first appellate court therefore could not be reopened, and the reversal of those findings was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:18:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173498 In a second appeal, the High Court cannot reappraise oral evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact merely by labelling them perverse. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines interference to the narrow limits of second appellate jurisdiction, and those limits were exceeded when the High Court undertook a fresh evaluation of evidence. The concurrent factual findings of the trial court and first appellate court therefore could not be reopened, and the reversal of those findings was not sustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173498