SHAH CHANDRAKANT RAMJI Vs. PATEL KARSHANBHAI NATHUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is one under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the appellant is the original plaintiff, and the respondents are the defendants.

(2.) THE scope of section 100 CPC, and the powers of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction as a second appellate court are by now well demarcated and require no detailed discussion. THE Supreme Court has, in the case of (i) Ramaswamy Kalingaryar Vs. Mathayan Padayachi (AIR 1992 Supp (1) SCC page 712), (ii) Kashibai w/o of Lachiram (2) 1995(7) JT (SC) 48 and (iii) Parsini (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Atma Ram (AIR 1996 SC 1558), clearly reiterated the principle that the High Court cannot, while functioning as a second appellate court under section 100 CPC, upset the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court by reassessing the evidence, or reassess the qualitative value of such evidence on record, and thus cannot reverse such findings of fact. In fact, the High Court cannot interfere with such findings of fact even by examining or reappreciating the evidence from the aspect of "sufficiency of proof".

(3.) AS already discussed by me hereinabove, the scope and ambit of the present appeal under section 100, CPC, is extremely narrow. It is not open to me to reappreciate the evidence on record, and to arrive at findings contrary to the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, particularly when such findings are neither perverse nor absurd, and when the judgement and decrees impugned herein cannot be said to be based on "no evidence".