High Court Of Delhi Dismisses A Regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 Of CPC As Not Maintainable In The Absence Of A Substantial Question Of Law

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 16.06.2026 in Smt. Khatiza Begam v. Ms. Salma Khan¹, dismissed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), by relying on the settled law that the jurisdiction of the Second Appellate Court is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law and cannot be invoked for reappreciation of evidence or factual findings.

The instant second appeal arose from a decree for possession passed in favour of Ms. Salma Khan by the First Appellate Court. Smt. Khatiza Begam challenged the findings on ownership, possession and appreciation of documentary evidence.

The Court held that the First Appellate Court had comprehensively examined the evidence on record and concluded that Ms. Salma Khan had established a better possessory title than Smt. Khatiza Begam. The grounds urged in the second appeal were found to be purely factual and aimed at seeking re-appreciation of evidence. Since no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the Court being the Second Appellate Court held that the second appeal was not maintainable under Section 100 of CPC and accordingly dismissed it.

Footnote

^{1 RSA 17/2025}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.