In one case, the Trial Court dismissed the suit stating that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit schedule property. The First appellate court altered these detections and decreed the suit. In the second appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court reinstated the Trial Court order dispersing the suit.
When the matter went to SC, the plaintiff stated that the High court had indulged in reappreciation of the evidence, which is impermissible at the second appeal stage. While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court bench stated that there is very restricted scope for re-appreciating the evidence or interfering with the finding of fact rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the relevant act. It additionally added that divergent findings on fact were with the High Court. In such a case, though reappreciation of the evidence was not allowed, except when it is contrary, it was certainly open for the High Court to take note of the case pleaded, evidence tendered, as also the findings provided by the two courts which were at conflict with each other and one of the views taken by the courts was needed to be approved.
We offer a wide range of lawyers to cater to all your every legal needs and requirement.
Our team provides you support in managing your legal issue without any additional and hidden charges.
Once you finalise the lawyer, you can proceed with predefined time estimation & pricing.
Dedicated Case Follow-up Manager to assist you in coordination with the Lawyer.