BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 02.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.19195 of 2025

S.Suresh

Correspondent,

Mother Therasa Nursery and Primary School,

Plot No.464, 10^th East Cross Street,

Anna Nagar, Madurai-20. ... Appellant/

Appellant/ Defendant

Vs.

Rev.Fr.Peter,

Procurator,

R.C.Diocese of Madurai

having office at Arch Bishop's House,

K.Pudur, Madurai-7. ... Respondent/

Respondent/

Plaintiff

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai in A.S.No.24 of 2023 which confirmed the

judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai in O.S.No.1117 of 2018.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Sukumar

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.24 of 2023 dated 28.10.2024 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1117 of 2018 dated 16.12.2022 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant is the defendant (hereinafter referred as 'defendant'). The respondent / plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit in O.S.No.1117 of 2018 directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2,05,267/- for the period till 08.08.2018, the date of termination of lease and for past and future mesne profits. The defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 decreeing the suit with costs by directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the plaintiff within a month time and to pay Rs.2,05,262/- as arrears of rent and the plaintiff was entitled to conduct separate enquiry for the past and future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2023 and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the defendant has 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 of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs. reported in 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