Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a second appeal because the High Court had identified errors in the first appellate court’s approach but mechanically restored the trial decree without assessing the evidence. It should have remitted the unresolved factual issues or, where Section 103 CPC permitted, determined them itself. The High Court was to reconsider the appeal, with liberty to revise or add substantial questions after hearing the parties. Neither the property merits nor the correctness of its earlier legal conclusion was decided.
Issues
- How the High Court should deal with factual issues left unresolved by an erroneous first appellate approach in a second appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 103, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Where sufficient evidence exists, the High Court may determine necessary factual issues not determined below or wrongly determined because of the relevant legal error, within the statutory limits. (¶ 9-13)
Held
- Second appeals ordinarily turn on substantial questions of law, but Section 103 permits factual determination in its specified circumstances where the record is sufficient. The power is circumscribed and cannot justify routine substitution of factual conclusions. (¶ 10-11)
- After finding the first appellate court’s approach erroneous, the High Court should have remanded the factual issues or properly addressed them under Section 103. Mechanical restoration of the trial decree without evidentiary assessment was inadequate. (¶¶ 9, 12-13)
- The appeal was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, with liberty to modify or add questions of law after giving the parties an opportunity. No view was expressed on the merits or the correctness of the earlier legal holding. Disposal within six months was requested. (¶ 14-16)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court order set aside and second appeal remanded for fresh consideration, with merits left open.