Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 31,96,100

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 31 & S. 96 Appellate Court need not refer to each and every piece of evidence in support of its finding.   It is not incumbent on the first appellate Court to refer to each and every piece of evidence relied upon by the trial Court in support of its finding, provided the material evidence had been considered. At times it would be impossible and frequently it will be intolerable and always very inconvenient if the Courts were compelled to state every piece of evidence in the case and arrive at a particular finding upon such evidence.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 96 & 100-Scope of first appeal and that of second appeal-Different-Second appeal limited to three grounds specified in S. 100-Erroneous finding of Jact-Different from error or defect in procedure Erroneous finding of fact based on legal evidence, however meagre-Cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal-Maxim: interest reipublicaent sit finis litium (it concerns the State that there be an end to litigation).   There is a broad distinction between the scope of first appeal and that of second appeal in that the former is not limited to any particular grounds of appeal, but in the case of latter it can be allowed only on any of the three grounds specified in section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The provision restricting the grounds that may be taken in Second Appeal is on the ground of public policy expressed in the maxim interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium it concerns the State that there be an end to litigation. To entertain second appeal, any of the three conditions mentioned in section 100 of the Code must, therefore, be strictly fulfilled. As long as there is legal evidence, however meagre it might be to sustain the finding of the first appellate Court and however erroneous it might appear to the High Court, it cannot be called into question in that erroneous finding of fact is a different thing from an error or defect in the procedure.   Venkata Kumara Mahipaty Muryarao Bahadur Garu v. Secy. of State A I R 1929 P C 152 and Mst. Durga Choudrain v. Jawahir Singh Choudhri 17 I A 22 ref.   ORDER   The…