DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH

Session 2023-2024

Subject: CPC- II

Title: Role of Appellate Court in Reappraisal of Evidence

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Praveen Tripathi
Associate Professor of law

SUBMITTED BY:
Ajinkya Kotasthane (BALLB/006/20)

1
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER I: ROLE OF APPELLATE COURT .......................................... 5

CHAPTER II: REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE .......................................... 7

CHAPTER III: LIMITATIONS ON REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE ...... 9

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 11

2
CONSULTATION

3
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

In the intricate tapestry of legal adjudication, the appellate courts stand as vigilant sentinels,
entrusted with the solemn responsibility of ensuring justice is not only meted out but is
perceived to be done. The paramount duty of an appellate court, as enshrined in the procedural
edifice of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), is to engage in a meticulous and objective scrutiny
of the evidence presented during trial. This scrutiny, often referred to as the "reappraisal of
evidence," forms the crux of the appellate process, wherein the higher judiciary reassesses the
factual matrix to ascertain the correctness and fairness of the Lower court's findings.
The CPC, as the bedrock of procedural law, vests appellate courts with the authority to
scrutinize both questions of law and questions of fact. However, it is the latter that unveils the
intricate web of the appellate court's engagement with evidence. The role of appellate courts in
the reappraisal of evidence is multifaceted, encompassing not only a review of the trial court's
findings but also an assessment of the application of legal principles to the established facts.
At the outset, it is imperative to acknowledge the cardinal principle that appellate courts do not
function as mere rubber stamps, mechanically affirming the decisions of lower courts. Instead,
they function as guardians of justice, undertaking a nuanced examination of the evidence to
rectify any miscarriage of justice that may have occurred at the trial level. The appellate
process, in essence, acts as a safety valve within the legal framework, ensuring that litigants
are not unduly burdened by erroneous judgments resulting from misinterpretation or
misapplication of evidence. In the course of reappraising evidence, appellate courts are vested
with the discretionary power to weigh the probative value of evidence, scrutinize the credibility
of witnesses, and evaluate the overall coherence of the trial court's reasoning. This discretionary
authority, however, is not unbridled; rather, it is circumscribed by well-defined legal
parameters. Appellate courts, guided by established jurisprudence, exercise their discretion
judiciously, intervening only in cases where a palpable error or manifest injustice is discerned.
The appellate process unfolds as a collaborative endeavour between law and equity, seeking to
harmonize the rigid contours of legal rules with the flexible demands of justice. The CPC,
cognizant of this delicate equilibrium, empowers appellate courts to delve into questions of fact
with a holistic perspective, considering not only the isolated fragments of evidence but the
mosaic they collectively form. This holistic approach underscores the appellate court's
responsibility to unearth the truth and dispense justice without being unduly tethered by
technicalities. But this power comes with limitation that will be covered by this project.

4
 CHAPTER II: ROLE OF APPELLATE COURT

An appellate court wherein an appeal of first instance lies having this prominent stature
of entertaining such an appeal must have certain powers and duties which stands in
consonance to its position.
The same have been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The power of
an appellate court ranges from powers such as power to decide a case finally which can
be seemed as an obvious power. Other powers such as power to remand, power to
frame issues and refer them for trail, power to take additional evidence and power to
modify a decree are few such powers which the appellate court adheres while
entertaining an appeal.

SECTION 1071: (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an
Appellate Court shall have power

(a) To determine a case finally;

(b) To remand a case;

(c) To frame issues and refer them for trial;

(d) To take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powersand shall
perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this
Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.

The provisions of S. 107 as elucidated by Order XLI,Rule 272, are clearly not intended to
allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower court to patch up the weak parts
of his case and fill up omissions in the court of appeal. Under Rule 27, cl. (1) (b) 3, it is
only where the appellate court ‘requires’ it, that is, finds it needful that additional evidence

1
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
2
Ibid. 1
3 Ibid 1

5
can be admitted. It may be required to enable the court to pronounce judgment, or for any
other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the court that requires it. The
legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is
heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence but when on examiningthe evidence as it
stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent

Watt v. Thomas4 it was observed that “it is a cogent circumstance that a Judge of first
instance, when estimating the value of verbal testimony, has the advantage (which is
denied to courts of appeal) of having the witnesses before him and observing the
manner in which their evidence is given.” This was adverted to with approval by the
with the Supreme Court in Sarju Pershad v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh5.

4 Watt v Thomas, 1947

5 1950 SCR 781

6
 CHAPTER III: REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE

The concept of "reappraisal of evidence" within the framework of the Civil Procedure Code
(CPC) is fundamental to the appellate process, representing the judicial scrutiny and evaluation
of evidence adduced before the trial court. The term connotes a comprehensive re-examination
of the factual matrix of a case by the appellate court, with the aim of ensuring that justice is not
only done but is manifestly seen to be done.
The need for reappraisal arises from the inherent limitations of the trial court, which, despite
its earnest efforts, may occasionally err in appreciating the evidence before it. The appellate
court, in its supervisory role, steps in to rectify any such errors and to uphold the integrity of
the adjudicative process. This is particularly crucial in instances where the trial court's findings
are challenged on the grounds of misinterpretation, misapplication of legal principles, or a
failure to duly consider relevant evidence.
A landmark case illustrating the significance of the reappraisal of evidence is M. S. Sheriff v.
State of Madras6, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the appellate court's duty to
undertake a fresh and independent assessment of evidence. The Court held that the appellate
authority is not merely an appellate court in the traditional sense but functions as a court of
appeal and revision, possessing the authority to review both questions of law and fact.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin7, elucidated
that the appellate court is duty-bound to interfere when a substantial and material error in the
appreciation of evidence is detected, and the failure to correct such an error would result in a
miscarriage of justice.
The timing of the reappraisal is dictated by the filing of an appeal. Upon the initiation of an
appeal, the appellate court assumes the responsibility of revisiting the evidence presented
during the trial. This marks the initiation of the appellate court's meticulous examination, where
it evaluates not only the correctness of the trial court's findings but also the application of legal
principles to the established facts.
In the case of Lachhman Das v. Gurmit Singh8, the Supreme Court iterated that the appellate
court is not confined merely to issues of law but is obligated to re-evaluate the entire evidence
on record to ensure that justice is served. This underscores the iterative and dynamic nature of
the reappraisal process, emphasizing its pivotal role in the appellate court's quest for justice.

6
AIR 1954 SC 397
7 2007 67 ALR 750
8 AIR 1971 SC 198

7
the reappraisal of evidence under the CPC emerges as an indispensable mechanism for the
appellate courts to fulfil their duty as guardians of justice. Rooted in the principles of fairness
and equity, this process exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to rectify errors, dispel
injustice, and maintain the sanctity of the legal process.

8
 CHAPTER IV: LIMITATIONS ON REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE

The reappraisal of evidence within the ambit of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) serves as a
pivotal mechanism for the appellate courts to rectify errors and ensure justice. However, this
process is not without its limitations, and a nuanced understanding of these constraints is
essential for a comprehensive examination of the appellate process.
One notable limitation lies in the Principle of Deference to the trial court's assessment of
credibility. The appellate courts, while undertaking a reappraisal of evidence, are
circumscribed by the principle that the trial court, having observed the demeanour of witnesses
first-hand, is better positioned to evaluate their credibility.
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram9, emphasized the
significance of the trial court's advantage in this regard. The Court held that appellate
interference in matters of credibility is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, where
there is a glaring error or a manifest injustice.
Another limitation pertains to the appellate court's Reliance on The Documentary Evidence
without the benefit of live testimony. The Supreme Court, in Amar Singh v. Balwinder
Singh10, elucidated that appellate courts must be cautious when basing conclusions solely on
documentary evidence, as they lack the advantage of directly assessing the demeanour and
responses of witnesses. This limitation underscores the need for appellate courts to exercise
prudence and restraint when confronted with issues reliant on documentary proof.
Additionally, the Doctrine of ‘Substantial Evidence’ poses a limitation on the reappraisal
process. The appellate courts are constrained by the principle that interference is warranted
only when there is a glaring deficiency in the appreciation of evidence leading to a miscarriage
of justice. In Rudra Kumar Sain vs. The State of Bihar11, the Supreme Court reiterated that
the appellate court must not substitute its view for that of the trial court unless there exists a
substantial and compelling reason to do so.
Furthermore, the limitation of time constraints in the appellate process deserves consideration.
Appellate courts, often burdened with voluminous case dockets, are constrained by the
exigencies of time. The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Satish Puri12, recognized the
need for expeditious disposal of appeals and emphasized that the appellate courts must balance
the quest for justice with the imperative of timely adjudication.

9 AIR 1999 SC 1779

10 AIR 2003 SC 1364
11 AIR 2017 SC 1840
12 AIR 1997 SC 1252

9
while the reappraisal of evidence in the CPC is an indispensable facet of the appellate process,
it is not immune to limitations. The principles of deference to the trial court's assessment of
credibility, caution in reliance on documentary evidence, adherence to the doctrine of
substantial evidence, and the constraints of time underscore the delicate balance appellate
courts must strike. A judicious understanding of these limitations is essential for maintaining
the equilibrium between rectifying errors and upholding the finality of trial court decisions in
the pursuit of justice.

10
 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

In the intricate tapestry of legal adjudication, appellate courts play a crucial role as vigilant
sentinels, entrusted with the solemn responsibility of ensuring not only the meting out of justice
but also its perception. Central to this responsibility, as outlined in the procedural framework
of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), is the meticulous and objective scrutiny of evidence during
trial—a process commonly referred to as the "reappraisal of evidence." This process constitutes
the core of the appellate courts' function, wherein the higher judiciary reassesses the factual
matrix to determine the correctness and fairness of the lower court's findings.
The CPC, serving as the bedrock of procedural law, confers upon appellate courts the authority
to scrutinize both questions of law and fact. However, it is the latter that unveils the intricate
web of the appellate court's engagement with evidence. Appellate courts, in this context, do not
merely affirm lower court decisions mechanically; instead, they function as guardians of
justice, undertaking a nuanced examination to rectify any miscarriage of justice that may have
occurred at the trial level.
The discretion vested in appellate courts during the reappraisal of evidence is not unbridled but
circumscribed by well-defined legal parameters. Guided by established jurisprudence, these
courts intervene judiciously, primarily in cases where a palpable error or manifest injustice is
discerned. The appellate process is a collaborative endeavour between law and equity, seeking
to harmonize legal rules with the flexible demands of justice.

the powers and duties of appellate courts are given under Section 107 of the CPC, illustrating
the authority to determine cases finally, remand cases, frame issues, refer them for trial, and
take additional evidence. Case laws emphasized the discretionary nature of these powers and
the need for caution, particularly regarding the admission of additional evidence.

the reappraisal of evidence means rectifying errors and ensuring justice. Landmark cases such
as M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin were cited to
underscore the appellate court's duty to independently assess evidence. The iterative and
dynamic nature of the reappraisal process, as outlined in Lachhman Das v. Gurmit Singh,
emphasizes its pivotal role in the pursuit of justice.

the limitations inherent in the reappraisal of evidence. The principle of deference to the trial
court's assessment of credibility, caution in relying solely on documentary evidence, adherence

11
to the doctrine of substantial evidence, and the constraints of time are identified as critical
constraints. Case laws, such as State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, Amar Singh v. Balwinder
Singh, and Rudra Kumar Sain vs. The State of Bihar, were cited to illustrate these limitations.

while the reappraisal of evidence in the CPC is indispensable for appellate courts to fulfill their
duty as guardians of justice, it is not without limitations. The delicate balance between
rectifying errors and upholding the finality of trial court decisions requires a judicious
understanding of these constraints. The principles of deference, caution, adherence, and timely
adjudication underscore the nuanced approach appellate courts must adopt in the pursuit of
justice.

12