Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.103 – High Courts’ jurisdiction to appreciate factual issues u/s.103 CPC – Held: High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review u/s.103 CPC – 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 s.103 CPC – In the present case, the High Court recorded sound and convincing reasons why the first appellate court’s judgment required interference – The first appellate court fell into error in overlooking important evidence and appreciating the record in its true perspective, and reversed the decree of the trial court – High Court, in second appeal proceeded to examine the documents in light of the evidence led and corrected the findings as it were u/s.103 – Impugned judgment of High Court does not expressly refer to s.103, however, in the circumstances of the case, it is evident that the High Court exercised power in the light of that provision.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The jurisdiction which a High Court derives under Section 100 CPC 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. [Para 14][116-C-D]
2. In the present case, the High Court recorded sound and convincing reasons why the first appellate court’s judgment required interference. These were entirely based upon the evidence led by the parties on the record. The first appellate court fell into error in overlooking important evidence and appreciating the record in its true perspective, and reversed the decree of the trial court. 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. Having regard to the overall circumstances, the impugned judgment does not call for interference in exercise of special leave jurisdiction (which is available to this Court – even at the stage of final hearing). [Para 18][118-D, G-H; 119-A-C] Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2010) 13 SCC 216 : [2010] 13 SCR
658 and Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through Lrs. v Bisaram & Ors, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 319 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.