https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184250 Section 100 CPC confines second appellate jurisdiction to substantial questions of law, and such a question is a condition precedent to interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement as if hearing a first appeal, especially when no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity was shown. Because the High Court failed to properly address the formulated legal question, its judgment could not stand; the appeal was allowed and the eviction suit remained dismissed. en-us Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2016 11:47:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184250 Section 100 CPC confines second appellate jurisdiction to substantial questions of law, and such a question is a condition precedent to interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not reappreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement as if hearing a first appeal, especially when no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity was shown. Because the High Court failed to properly address the formulated legal question, its judgment could not stand; the appeal was allowed and the eviction suit remained dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184250