High Court Can't Act As 'Third Court Of Facts' In Second Appeals Under Section 100 CPC: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is not expected to function as a 'third court of facts' for undertaking fresh factual inquiry or reassessing evidence, merely because another view was possible from the record. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the findings of fact by the courts below carried a presumption...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is not expected to function as a 'third court of facts' for undertaking fresh factual inquiry or reassessing evidence, merely because another view was possible from the record.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the findings of fact by the courts below carried a presumption of correctness and sanctity, that could be interfered with only when such findings were demonstrated to be patently perverse, manifestly illegally or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
“The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is intended to preserve legal uniformity and correct substantial errors of law, and not to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by the courts below.”
The Court was hearing a Second Appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge and the appellate court, wherein the civil suit instituted by the appellant was dismissed.
It was the case of the appellant that an agreement to sell was executed with the respondent, but despite of the agreed consideration, the defendants proceeded to alienate the property to some third party. Hence, the suit was filed which was dismissed.
On the contrary, the respondents argued that the fact of the property being transferred in favour of another person was duly established. No substantial question of law arose in the present appeal and the appellants merely sought re-appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible under section 100, CPC.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the jurisdiction in a Civil Second Appeal under Section 100, CPC, was neither plenary not equivalent to that exercised in a regular first appeal. The power of interference under the provision was limited to interference only in cases involving substantial questions of law.
“Reappreciation of evidence in second appeal is wholly impermissible unless the conclusions arrived at by the subordinate courts shock judicial conscience on account of palpable perversity or complete misapplication of settled legal principles. A substantial question of law cannot arise merely because the appellants seek substitution of one possible view by another.”
In this background, the Court perused the records and highlighted that the conclusion reached by the both the lower courts appeared to have been guided by judicial prudence, balanced reasoning and meticulous appreciation of the material on record.
The Court stated that the decisions of the courts could not be termed as perverse, arbitrary or contrary to the record.
"What has essentially been sought before this Court is a fresh appreciation and re-evaluation of factual aspects already scrutinized in considerable detail by both the learned courts below. Such an exercise unmistakably falls outside the permissible contours of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Title: LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194