Disappointed with High Court, how many times must we explain scope of second appeal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was recently displeased to come across yet another case where a High Court had misinterpreted the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) [Jaichand (Dead) Through LRs & ors. v. Sahnulal & Anr.].The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the observation while setting aside an Chhattisgarh High Court judgment from 2021. The top court also raised eyebrows over the manner in which the High Court had drafted a 'substantial question of law' in its judgment. "We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the High Court framed the so-called substantial question of law. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be termed even a question of law far from being a substantial question of law. How many times the Apex Court should keep explaining the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and how a substantial question of law should be framed?” the Bench remarked..How many times the Apex Court should keep explaining the scope of a second appeal?Supreme Court.The Court reiterated that under Section 100, CPC, High Courts are generally expected to go by the findings of fact made by the first appellate court, except in a limited circumstances.Ordinarily, the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court are final, unless there is a violation of mandatory legal provisions, established caselaws, or reliance on inadmissible or non-existent evidence, the top court added. The Bench proceeded to criticise High Courts that neglect to follow these principles while dealing with second appeals. “It is not that the High Courts are not well-versed with the principles governing Section 100 of the CPC. It is only the casual and callous approach on the part of the courts to apply the correct principles of law to the facts of the case that leads to passing of vulnerable orders like the one on hand,” the Supreme Court said..The case before the Court revolved around a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning 0.238 hectares of land. The agreement, executed in April, 1996, fixed the sale price at ₹50,000 per acre, with an earnest money payment of ₹6,000. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants - who were legal heirs of the original owner - failed to execute the sale deed despite their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The suit was filed in 2003, after an alleged breach of contract by the defendants.The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to execute the sale deed. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that delays by the plaintiffs in pursuing the contract raised doubts about their readiness and willingness to perform. It instead granted alternative relief, directing the defendants to refund the earnest money..The High Court, in a second appeal, restored the trial court’s judgment. It relied on Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows courts discretion in granting the relief of specific performance. Notably, the High Court did not address the first appellate court’s findings on the plaintiffs’ conduct.The Supreme Court criticized this aspect, opining that it reflected a casual handling of the second appeal.The top court further opined that the first appellate court had rightly considered the plaintiffs’ conduct, including their delay in issuing notices and filing the suit. These factors legitimately raised doubts about their readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract.The High Court, however, overlooked these findings and instead focused on the issue of hardship to the defendants. This issue was neither pleaded nor supported by evidence, the Supreme Court found. It proceeded to set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment and upheld the first appellate court’s decision. It directed the defendants to refund ₹3,50,000 - representing the current market value of the property -to the plaintiffs within eight weeks..[Read Judgement]