The Calcutta High Court clarified that when a second appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction by deciding a question of fact without framing a substantial question of law—as required by Section 100 CPC—such a decision qualifies as “sufficient reason” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review. The judgment upholds the established principle that second appeals are confined to substantial questions of law and affirms the limits of review jurisdiction, constituting binding authority for all subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RVW/136/2021 of SANATAN SARKAR @ SRI SUSANTA SARKAR AND ORS Vs SUMAN DUTTA AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0334922021 |
| Date of Registration | 08-11-2021 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies previous second appeal order; upholds concurrent factual findings of trial and first appellate courts |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Review Jurisdiction; Second Appeal (Section 100, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 100 CPC in second appeals is confined to substantial questions of law. Deciding questions of fact without framing a substantial question of law constitutes a misconception of law and goes beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Such an error is a “sufficient reason” for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, following Supreme Court precedents. The High Court can modify its order in review to restore the proper scope of appellate review and uphold concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law arises. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents on the scope of review jurisdiction, interpretation of “sufficient reason” in Order 47, the limits of second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, and the “concurrent finding of facts” rule. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | After a long-standing property dispute involving several parties, sale transactions, and competing claims to inheritance and possession, the trial court held defendant no. 3 as a trespasser but declined eviction before partition; the first appellate court reversed, granting eviction. The second appellate court, without formulating a substantial question of law, re-examined facts and reversed the finding on trespass and eviction. Review was sought, claiming this exceeded the court’s powers under Section 100 CPC, as the substantial questions of law had all been answered and factual findings could not be disturbed absent such a question. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal; Calcutta High Court circuit |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court (as persuasive precedent), particularly on review and second appeal practice |
| Overrules | Modifies the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 20.04.2021 passed in SA 36/2008 to restore findings of trial and first appellate court on factual possession and eviction |
| Distinguishes | Lily Thomas (interpreted in context of review not being an appeal in disguise), and BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club (scope of “sufficient reason” for review) |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents on review (BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, Lily Thomas), second appeal (Umrkshan v. Bismillabi), and the meaning of substantial question of law |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a High Court in second appeal cannot disturb concurrent factual findings of subordinate courts without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
- Deciding a factual issue without framing a substantial question of law is a “misconception of law” and constitutes “sufficient reason” for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
- Review jurisdiction permits modification of only that part of a judgment/order which is found erroneous, without disturbing other findings.
- Lawyers can cite this as direct authority for review where a second appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction by re-examining facts without a substantial question of law.
- Reaffirms the limitations on the scope of review: it is not an appeal in disguise, but allows rectification of errors resulting in miscarriage of justice.
- Even where an erroneous finding is not appealed, a review is maintainable if the court’s order impacts justice due to a legal misconception.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Review and Second Appeal: The Court set out that review is available on three grounds under Order 47 Rule 1—new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or “sufficient reason.”
- Substantial Question of Law Requirement: Section 100 CPC restricts second appeals to substantial questions of law. Without framing such a question, the second appellate court cannot disturb factual findings. Cited: (2011) 9 SCC 684 (Umrkshan v. Bismillabi).
- Limits of Review: Review is not a rehearing or an appeal in disguise (Lily Thomas) but can be used where an order is vitiated by a misconception of law.
- “Sufficient Reason” Includes Misconception of Law: Following (2005) 4 SCC 741 (BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club), any misconception of law—such as exceeding the Section 100 jurisdiction—comes within “sufficient reason.”
- Concurrent Factual Findings Cannot Be Reversed Absent Question of Law: The second appellate judgment reversed lower courts’ findings as to possession and eviction of defendant no. 3 (trespasser status), notwithstanding no additional substantial question of law being framed. This was a jurisdictional error.
- Remedy: The High Court, exercising review, deleted only those findings in the second appeal order which disturbed concurrent factual determinations without lawful authority—restoring the First Appellate Court’s direction for eviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Court in second appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a factual issue (regarding possession and status of trespasser) without framing a substantial question of law.
- Such an excess or misconception of jurisdiction qualifies as “sufficient reason” under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review.
- Cited multiple Supreme Court decisions that “sufficient reason” includes misconception of law, and that review jurisdiction is not barred from considering new documents unavailable previously if they could impact the decision.
- Sought modification of the impugned order by restoring the factual findings and directions of the First Appellate Court regarding eviction.
Respondent
- Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot substitute for appeal (“review is not an appeal in disguise”).
- The erroneous decision, if any, should have been challenged by regular appeal, not review.
- The expression “sufficient reason” must be interpreted ejusdem generis and is not a catch-all; only reasons analogous to those specified in Order 47 Rule 1 are permissible.
- Defended the original second appellate order as a legitimate exercise of the court’s power to rectify lower courts’ errors.
Factual Background
- The dispute arose from a suit for declaration, injunction, and subsequent eviction filed by Sabita Sarkar concerning inheritance rights in joint family properties after a contested partition and will.
- Sabita transferred her interest during the suit; after her death, the transferees were substituted as plaintiffs.
- Defendant no. 3 acquired property from one of the co-sharers and was alleged to be a trespasser in respect of a specified portion.
- The trial court held him to be a trespasser but denied eviction until partition; the first appellate court granted eviction.
- The second appellate court reversed the finding on possession and trespasser status without framing a new substantial question of law, leading to the review petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 CPC (Second Appeal): Limits the jurisdiction of the High Court to “substantial question of law.” No reversal or modification of factual findings is permissible absent such a question.
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (Review): Allows review for: (i) new evidence impossible to present earlier, (ii) error apparent on the record, (iii) “any other sufficient reason”, which has been interpreted to include misconceptions of law.
- Section 103 CPC: Permits High Court to decide issues of fact only if necessary for disposal of the appeal and tied to a substantial question of law.
- Interpretation Provided: “Substantial” means significant/essential; not technical or academic. The scope of review extends to correcting an order where jurisdictional error results in miscarriage of justice.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are noted in the judgment. All findings are by the single judge, Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court clarified that in reviewing its own prior order, it can delete or modify only those portions tainted by jurisdictional error, leaving other findings intact.
- Explicitly recognised that a review need not set aside the entire order—partial modification is available where only a portion is found erroneous.
- The Court relied directly on the record (including judgments and evidence from lower courts) when addressing scope for review, consistent with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed and confirmed Supreme Court precedents regarding the scope of review and the limits of second appellate jurisdiction.