ORDER

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2023 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, District - Chhararpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.32/2020, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.11A/19 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-2, Chhatarpur, District-Chhararpur (M.P.).

2 . Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 17.07.1992, on the ground that defendant had executed agreement of sale in his favour and also delivered possession to plaintiff and plaintiff is in possession of suit property.

3 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per findings recorded in the Trial Court, execution of agreement to sale Ex.P/1 has been found proved. Plaintiff is in possession of suit property. It is also urged that even if suit is not decreed with respect to defendant No.1, still, it may be decreed with respect to defendant No.2 and advance amount may be directed to be refunded to plaintiff. Hence, in view of above, it is urged that substantial questions of law as mentioned in appeal memo arise for determination. Hence, appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. Heard. Perused record of the case.

5. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in RCS No.11A/19 dismissed plaintiff's suit and Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2023 passed in RCA No.28/2020 dismissed plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

6. Therefore, question arises as to when this Court can interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the first appellate court/trial court. In this connection, I would like to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) through Lrs. And Others vs. Saraswati and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in para 33(iii) has held as under:- “33 (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well - recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision” based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."

7. Similarly in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by legal representatives and Others vs. Lehna Singh (Dead) by legal representatives, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “13.1.......However, in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court, by impugned judgment and order has interfered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. While interfering with the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court, it appears that while upsetting the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court has again appreciated the entire evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC is not permissible. While passing the impugned judgment and order, it appears that High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the High Court was deciding the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and not first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of ‘a substantial question of law’ is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. As observed and held