The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-evaluate evidence or facts determined by lower courts unless there is a clearly established error in law or procedure.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.16 of 2023, dated 27.02.2024, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Periyakulam, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.104 of 2018, dated 25.01.2023, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam.

2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.104 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Periyakulam against the appellants/defendants for recovery of money due on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the deceased Veeramuthu. The defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2023 and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2024, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and thereby decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the impugned judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given in the case ofGurnam Singh (Dead) by LRs. and others Vs. Lehna Singh (Dead) by LRs. AIR 2019 SC 1441, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and