Section 103 of CPC : Section 103: Power of High Court to determine issues of fact.
CPC
JavaScript did not load properly
Some content might be missing or broken. Please try disabling content blockers or use a different browser like Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
Explanation using Example
Example 1:
Scenario: Rajesh filed a civil suit in the District Court claiming ownership of a piece of land. The District Court ruled in favor of Rajesh. The defendant, Suresh, appealed to the High Court, which also ruled in favor of Rajesh. Suresh then filed a second appeal to the High Court, arguing that the lower courts did not consider a crucial piece of evidence that could prove his ownership.
Application of Section 103: In this second appeal, the High Court reviews the case and finds that the evidence on record is sufficient to determine the issue of ownership. The High Court notices that the lower courts did not consider the crucial piece of evidence presented by Suresh. Under Section 103, the High Court has the power to determine this issue of fact, even though it was not determined by the lower courts. The High Court examines the evidence and concludes that Suresh is the rightful owner of the land, thereby reversing the decisions of the lower courts.
Example 2:
Scenario: Meena filed a lawsuit in the District Court seeking compensation for breach of contract. The District Court ruled against Meena, stating that there was no breach of contract. Meena appealed to the High Court, which upheld the District Court's decision. Meena then filed a second appeal to the High Court, arguing that the lower courts wrongly interpreted the contract terms.
Application of Section 103: In this second appeal, the High Court reviews the case and finds that the lower courts made an error in interpreting the contract terms due to a misapplication of the law. The High Court determines that the evidence on record is sufficient to resolve the issue. Under Section 103, the High Court has the authority to correct the wrongly determined issue of fact. The High Court reinterprets the contract terms correctly and finds that there was indeed a breach of contract. Consequently, the High Court rules in favor of Meena and awards her the compensation she sought.