The High Court has reiterated that a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is not maintainable merely for reappreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings of fact—unless a substantial question of law is involved. This judgment upholds settled precedent, providing clear guidance on the limited scope of second appeals and serving as binding authority for subordinate courts within its territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/2756/2022 of JAGTAR SINGH AND ANR. Vs AMAR NATH AND ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC011395462022 |
| Date of Registration | 13-12-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure – Interpretation of Section 100 CPC (Regular Second Appeal) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a regular second appeal is maintainable without involvement of a substantial question of law, merely to reappreciate evidence or challenge concurrent findings of fact. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that in a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible only if a substantial question of law arises. The appellants in this case sought to challenge concurrent factual findings regarding possession in a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction. The Court found that both lower courts had concurrently held the plaintiffs failed to prove possession, and no substantial question of law arose. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the second appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-respondents from dispossessing them from a Bara, claiming possession. Both trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove possession. The appellants challenged these findings in second appeal, arguing improper appreciation of evidence. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | The established principle under Section 100 CPC regarding interference only on substantial question of law |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that regular second appeals under Section 100 CPC cannot be used to merely seek reappreciation of evidence or overturn concurrent findings of fact.
- Stresses that only substantial questions of law justify interference in second appeal.
- Lawyers should focus on specifically formulating a substantial question of law at the time of filing second appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court emphasized that the core requirement for a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC is the raising of a substantial question of law.
- The present appeal challenged the concurrent findings relating to possession in a suit for simplicitor permanent injunction.
- Both the trial court and the first appellate court had found, upon appreciation of evidence, that the appellants were not in possession of the disputed Bara.
- The High Court found no cogent ground or legal error that would constitute a substantial question of law.
- As no substantial question of law was involved, the appeal was dismissed without reappreciating the factual findings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that both lower courts erred in dismissing the suit.
- Claimed the existence of sufficient evidence proving possession of the Bara.
- Argued that evidence on record was not properly appreciated by the courts below.
Respondent
- Argued that the plaintiffs were not in possession and had produced an incorrect site plan.
- Asserted that the property was part of Khasra No. 272, owned and possessed by the defendants.
- Claimed that the plaintiffs were not owners or possessors and the suit was an attempt to dispossess the rightful owners.
Factual Background
The suit was filed by the appellants for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them from a Bara situated in the Abadi of Village Hadiatpura, District Patiala. The plaintiffs claimed possession and alleged the defendants had no right or title. Both trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, concluding the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession, and the factual findings were challenged in this second appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was the focal statutory provision.
- The Court considered that second appeals under Section 100 CPC can be entertained only when a substantial question of law is involved.
- The judgment makes clear that concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not open to challenge unless perversity or substantial legal misapplication is demonstrated.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms existing law by strictly applying the principle that second appeals under Section 100 CPC are limited to substantial questions of law and do not permit reappreciation of facts.