https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183957 A second appeal cannot be used to disturb a pure finding of fact or reappreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law is first framed under Section 100 CPC; the High Court's interference with the appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the alleged agreement was therefore unsustainable. The Court also noted that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 remains available even after special leave is granted, so relief may be refused or moulded on equitable considerations. Because the encroachment had existed for years and demolition was not considered warranted, the decree was left substantially undisturbed and compensation based on the value of the occupied land was directed instead. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183957 A second appeal cannot be used to disturb a pure finding of fact or reappreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law is first framed under Section 100 CPC; the High Court's interference with the appellate court's finding on the genuineness of the alleged agreement was therefore unsustainable. The Court also noted that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 remains available even after special leave is granted, so relief may be refused or moulded on equitable considerations. Because the encroachment had existed for years and demolition was not considered warranted, the decree was left substantially undisturbed and compensation based on the value of the occupied land was directed instead. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183957