Allahabad High Court Dismisses 48-Year-Old Second Appeal For Want Of Substantial Question Of Law
While dismissing a second appeal filed 48 years ago, the Allahabad High Court has held that Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in second appeal when there is no substantial question of law involved.
Noting the judgment of Supreme Court in Rusi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Bhavna Seth and others, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“once this Court has found that no substantial question of law or even a question of law worth consideration in present second appeal, there is no occasion for this Court to re appreciate the evidence so as to come to a different conclusion.”
The Court noted that there were two grounds on which the second appeal was admitted in 1979: Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. are mandatory and were violated by the Trial Court, and the Trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction over the case.
Noting that Section 100 CPC only provides for appeals to the High Court from appellate decrees if there are substantial questions of law involved, the Court held,
“Sub-clause 3 of Section 100 CPC further provides that memorandum of appeal shall precisely state substantial question of law involve in appeal, whereas in present case in memorandum of appeal only grounds were mentioned and no substantial question of law was even mentioned therein. Therefore, the way this second appeal was admitted on basis of grounds treating them to be substantial questions of law was not appropriate.”
The Court noted that the issue of Court fees was settled at the Trial Court stage and the deficiency was made good by the appellant. It also observed that the issue was not raised at the first appeal stage and could not be considered a substantial question of law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that there were no substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal to re-appreciate the evidence.
Case Title: Smt. Qamrunnisa And Others Versus Smt. Tamizan And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 245
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 245