Substantial Question Of Law Is Sine Qua Non Under Section 100 CPC: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed a second appeal filed by Anil Kumar Garg challenging concurrent findings of the courts below in a dispute over an electricity bill of Rs. 24,219 raised by the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (M.P.S.E.B.), holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In its order dated February 12, 2026, Justice Deepak Khot refused to interfere with the judgments of the trial court and the First Appellate Court, both of which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the Electricity Department.

The appellant had contended that the electricity bill was illegal, arbitrary and based on an improper inspection. He alleged that the load had been wrongly assessed by treating a 40 HP motor as a 50 HP motor and by including a 20 HP motor allegedly connected to a closed oil mill. It was further pleaded that the meter had not been inspected by the Electricity Inspector and that the department had unjustifiably threatened disconnection of supply.

Appearing for the appellant, Shri Mahesh Goyal argued that the courts below erred in dismissing the suit without granting effective opportunity to lead evidence. He submitted that the dismissal on the ground of non-production of evidence had resulted in failure of justice and sought remand for fresh adjudication. On behalf of the respondent, Shri Rohit Shrivastava, appearing for Shri Narottam Sharma, defended the concurrent findings.

The High court, however, noted that the record revealed repeated opportunities granted to the plaintiff to adduce evidence after issues were framed on August 8, 2003. The case was successively fixed for evidence on September 25, 2003, November 11, 2003, December 16, 2003 and June 18, 2004. Despite these opportunities, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence. Instead, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was moved, which the trial court rejected as not bona fide and intended to protract the proceedings.

The First Appellate Court had affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that sufficient opportunities had been granted and that the plaintiff failed to substantiate allegations of illegal billing and wrongful disconnection. The High court found these to be concurrent findings of fact based on the record.

Reiterating the settled contours of Section 100 CPC, the court observed that interference in second appeal is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar and Others (2025), the court emphasized that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

Quoting from the Apex Court, the order noted: “Under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first Appellate Court… except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.”

Justice Khot concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity, misreading of evidence or violation of mandatory provisions. The findings that repeated opportunities were granted and that no sufficient cause was shown for failure to lead evidence were factual determinations not amenable to re-examination in second appeal.

“Considering the totality of the facts and findings arrived at by both the Courts below… this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal,” the court held, dismissing the appeal.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Garg v. Supdt. Engineer M.P.S.E.B.

Date of Judgment: February 12, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot