SC: A “Substantial question of law” is a sine qua non u/s 100 of the CPC.

Today, i.e. on 13th March 2019, in the matter of Gurnam Singh (D) By Lrs. & Ors. v. Lehna Singh (D) By Lrs., the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re­appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

The jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of a substantial  question of law’ is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. (Para 13.1)

While deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re­appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. (Para 18)

Copy of judgement:Judgement_13-Mar-2019

-Tushar Kaushik

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *