S.100 CPC | "Substantial Question Of Law" Is One That Impacts Decision In The Lis Between Parties: Gauhati High Court Explains Scope Of Second Appeal

The Gauhati High Court recently held that a Second Appeal would lie in cases that involve a substantial question of law and explained that the word 'substantial' prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor is it intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to the impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties.

Justice Devashish Baruah noted that,

'"Substantial question of law' means not only 'substantial question of law' of general importance but also a substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of Section 100 of the CPC, any question of law, which affects the final decision in a case is a 'substantial question of law' as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law."

An appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appellants' suit.

It was held that where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a 'question of law' by the Supreme Court or even by this Court, it cannot be said that the case involves a 'substantial question of law.' It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled, arises for consideration in the case. Still, this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective, meaning thereby that where there is a clear enunciation of law and the Lower Court has followed or rigidly applied such clear enunciation of law; obviously, the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance.

On the other hand, if there is a clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court or by this Court, but the Lower Courts had ignored or misinterpreted, or misapplied the same and correct application of the law as declared or enunciated by the Supreme Court or by this Court would have led to a different decision, the appeal would involve a 'substantial question of law' as between the parties. It was observed,

"Even where there is an enunciation of law by the Supreme Court or by this Court and the same has been followed by the Lower Court, if the appellant is able to persuade this Court that the enunciated legal position needs reconsideration, alteration, modification or clarification or that there is a need to resolve an apparent conflict between two different viewpoints, it can be said that a substantial question of law arises for consideration."

In other words, there cannot, therefore, be a straight jacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case; it shall depend on the facts of each case along with the decision rendered by the Courts below.

The Court referred to the case of State Bank of India & Ors v. S.N. Goyal, where it was held that concurrent findings of fact are usually binding on the Court while hearing a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

However, it was held that this Rule of law is subject to certain well-known exceptions. It is a trite law that to record any finding on the facts; the Trial Court is required to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the light of the parties' pleadings. Similarly, it is also trite law that the Appellate Court also has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence denovo while hearing the First Appeal and either affirm the finding of the Trial Court or reverse it. It was observed,

"If the Appellate Court affirms the finding, it is called "concurrent finding of facts," whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reverse finding." These expressions are well known in legal parlance."

However, when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in the Second Appeal, the Appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings, or it was based on no evidence, or it was based on a misreading of material documentary evidence, or it was recorded against the provisions of law. Lastly, the decision is one that no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.

If any or more grounds as mentioned hereinabove are made out in an appropriate case based on the pleadings and evidence, such ground or grounds will constitute a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.

Case Title: Banwarilal Sharma v. Kamala Devi Ajitsaria & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Gau) 38

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order