Second Appeal- High Courts Can Exercise Limited Factual Review Under Section 103 CPC: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Second Appeal- High Courts Can Exercise Limited Factual Review Under Section 103 CPC

Case: K.N. Nagarajappa Vs. H. Narasimha Reddy

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat

Case No: CA 5033-5034 OF 2009

Court Observation: Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction which a High Court derives under Section 100 is based upon its framing of a substantial question of law. As a matter of law, it is axiomatic that the findings of the first appellate court are final. However, the rule that sans a substantial question of law, the High Courts cannot interfere with findings of the lower Court or concurrent findings of fact, is subject to two important caveats. The first is that, if the findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage the conscience of the court; in other words, it flies on the face of logic that given the facts on the record, interference would be justified. The other is where the findings of fact may call for examination and be upset, in the limited circumstances spelt out in Section 103 CPC.

There is no prohibition on entertaining a second appeal even on a question of fact provided the court is satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below stood vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach to the matter.

If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law.

“Moreover, the High Court, in second appeal proceeded to examine the documents in light of the evidence led and corrected the findings as it were under Section 103. If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice. It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC. However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted. The impugned judgment does not expressly refer to that provision. In the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the High Court exercised the power in the light of that provision.”

[doc id=9037]

Previous Posts

Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It: Supreme Court

Fraudulent Practice To Gain Public Employment Cannot Be Countenanced: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Of 38 Workmen By BCCL

Medical Professionals Cannot Be Held Negligent Merely Because The Treatment Is Not Successful Or Patient Dies During Surgery: Supreme Court

Rule Or Law Cannot Be Construed As Retrospective Unless It Expresses A Clear Or Manifest Intention To The Contrary: Supreme Court Download Judgement