Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors., 2026

The judgment reinforces the limited jurisdiction of High Courts in second appeals.

Supreme Court of India·21 April 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

21 April 2026

Judges

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose from an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1988.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
The Trial Court denied specific performance and granted only refund of part consideration.
The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision and granted specific performance, holding that:
- The plaintiff had proved payment of consideration
- There was extension of time
- The plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness
The defendant challenged this before the High Court in a second appeal.
The High Court refused to interfere, holding that no substantial question of law arose.
The defendant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to re-appreciate evidence properly.

Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, can re-appreciate evidence and disturb factual findings of the First Appellate Court?
Whether erroneous findings of fact by the First Appellate Court can be interfered with in second appeal without a substantial question of law?
Whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with findings on readiness and willingness, payment, and extension of time?

The Supreme Court held that in a second appeal, the High Court’s jurisdiction is confined strictly to substantial questions of law.
It reiterated that findings of fact cannot be reopened, even if they appear erroneous.
The Court emphasized that re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in second appeal.
It found that the First Appellate Court’s findings on readiness and willingness, payment, and extension of time were not perverse or illegal.
The Court observed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere due to absence of any substantial question of law.
It rejected the appellant’s contention that the High Court should have reassessed evidence to reach a just conclusion.
The Supreme Court held that such arguments have no legal basis under Section 100 CPC.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the decree of specific performance was upheld.

High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in second appeal.
Interference is permissible only when a substantial question of law arises.
Findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are binding unless perverse or illegal.
The decree of specific performance was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
The scope of Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law.
High Courts cannot act as a fact-finding body in second appeal.
Findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

The judgment reinforces the limited jurisdiction of High Courts in second appeals.
It preserves the hierarchy of courts by respecting factual findings of lower courts.
The ruling ensures finality of litigation, preventing endless re-litigation of facts.
It discourages parties from misusing second appeals as a third round of factual adjudication.
The decision clarifies the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law.
It strengthens judicial efficiency by restricting unnecessary re-examination of evidence.