Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. [S. 100 (1)].
An appeal may lie under S. 100 from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (S. 100 (2)).
In an appeal under S. 100, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. [S. 100 (3)].
Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. [S. 100 (4)].
No further appeal in certain cases. (S. 100-A):
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court, or in any instrument having the force of law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge.
No second appeal in certain cases. (S. 102):
No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.
The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question.
But nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. [S. 100 (5)].
No second appeal shall lie except on the grounds! Mentioned in S. 100, C.P.C.
As a general rule a second appeal lies on a substantial question of law and this section expressly bars a second appeal on questions- of fact. There is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of an erroneous finding of fact, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be.
It is now well settled that the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless it is unsound, perverse or based on grounds which are unsatisfactory by reason of material inconsistencies, or inaccuracies.
The appellate court should not lightly j interfere with it merely because it takes a different view of the evidence. [Fakir v. Nakhi Dai, 1975 (1) C.W.R. 218].
Where the finding of the court on facts are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by essentially erroneous approach to the matter, the High Court is not precluded from interfering, 1992 (1) S.C.J. 36. (Nalini v. Padmanabhan Krishnan, A.I.R. 1994 Kerala, 14).
An appellate court cannot partly admit and partly reject the appeal under S. 100 or S. 101, C.P.C. It must either admit the appeal wholly or reject the same wholly. [Ramji Bhagala v. Krishnarao Krirao Bagra, (1982) S.C.C. 433].
In any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal—
(a) Which has not been determined by the lower appellate court or both the court of first instance and the lower appellate court, or
(b) Which has been wrongly determined by such court or courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in Section 100. (S. 103).