Gill & Co. v. Bimla Kumari, 1986 RLR 370
Section 107, Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code
Eviction notice to M/S Gill & Co on grounds of non-payment of rent; misuse , bona fide requirement as residence for herself and members of her family ; Sub-letting.
Whether the learned tribunal was correct in rejecting the application for production of additional evidence.
The general rule is that an appellate court shall decide an appeal on the evidence led by the parties before the lower Court and shall not admit additional evidence for the purpose of disposal of an appeal.
Evidently it is not a case where the lower Court had improperly refused to admit evidence. It was never tendered.
Likewise, it is not the case of the appellants that the additional evidence sought to be produced by them at the appellate stage was not within their knowledge or that the same could not be produced after exercise of due diligence No such effort seems to have been made.
The only question which falls for consideration is whether the additional evidence was required by the Appellate Court for enabling it to pronounce judgment or was there any other substantial cause for allowing the same
Jurisdiction of the High Court in 2nd Appeal is confined to the determination of substantial question of law and not to reverse the findings of fact. Hence High Court in 2nd appeal cannot re- appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact reached by the lower appellant court, unless of course, it can be shown that there was an error of law in arriving at it or that it was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. The High Court was incompetent to re- assess the evidence afresh and it was bound by the decision of the Tribunal on questions of fact.