LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – S. 5 – Condonation of delay – Second Appeal – delay of 92 days – sufficient cause not made out – application dismissed – appeal dismissed both on delay and merits. Appellant sought condonation of 92 days’ delay in preferring Second Appeal. High Court, on consideration of contents of affidavit in I.A. No. 1 of 2025, found no ground to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Consequentially, and also on independent examination of the record qua substantial questions of law, Second Appeal was dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay. (Paras 5–6)

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 – S. 100 – Second Appeal – concurrent findings on consideration under mortgage / money claim – scope of interference – no substantial question of law – Second Appeal dismissed.
   Suit for recovery of Rs.9,97,200/- on the basis of a mortgage deed – defendant admitted part consideration and denied balance – specific issue framed by trial Court as to want of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-; trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found in favour of plaintiff and decreed suit; first appellate Court confirmed findings. In Second Appeal, High Court held that the findings of both Courts below are concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises – interference under S.100 CPC declined.
   (Paras 2–5)

2. LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – S. 5 – Condonation of delay – Second Appeal – delay of 92 days – sufficient cause not made out – application dismissed – appeal dismissed both on delay and merits.
   Appellant sought condonation of 92 days’ delay in preferring Second Appeal. High Court, on consideration of contents of affidavit in I.A. No. 1 of 2025, found no ground to condone the delay and dismissed the application. Consequentially, and also on independent examination of the record qua substantial questions of law, Second Appeal was dismissed both on merits and on the ground of delay.
   (Paras 5–6)

3. CIVIL PROCEDURE – MONEY SUIT ON MORTGAGE / LOAN TRANSACTION – plea of no consideration – issue framed and answered by trial Court – affirmation by first appellate Court – no interference in Second Appeal.
   Suit O.S. No. 141 of 2016 filed for recovery of Rs.9,97,200/-. Defendant contested on the footing that suit mortgage deed was devoid of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-; specific issue framed as “Whether the suit mortgage deed is devoid of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- as pleaded by the defendant?” Trial Court answered issue against defendant in paras 14–16 of its judgment and decreed suit with costs; first appellate Court in A.S. No. 6 of 2023 re-examined contentions and affirmed trial Court’s findings. High Court in Second Appeal declined to reopen such concurrent factual findings.
   (Paras 2–4)

4. SECOND APPEAL – SCOPE – Concurrent findings – mere assertion of substantial questions of law not enough – requirement of demonstrable legal error.
   Appellant’s counsel relied on “substantial questions of law” formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal. High Court, after perusal, held that mere raising of so-called substantial questions does not ipso facto clothe the appeal with maintainability under S.100 CPC; in the absence of any real substantial question of law, concurrent findings cannot be disturbed.
   (Paras 3–5)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW 

1. Procedural posture (Paras 1–4):

   • Plaintiff/Respondent filed O.S. No. 141 of 2016 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, for recovery of Rs.9,97,200/-.

   • Defendant/Appellant contested, admitting receipt of part consideration and denying balance, asserting that the suit mortgage deed was devoid of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-.

   • Trial Court framed Issue No. 2 specifically on this aspect:

     “Whether the suit mortgage deed is devoid of consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- as pleaded by the defendant?”

   • Trial Court answered this issue in paras 14–16 of its judgment against the defendant and decreed the suit with costs by judgment and decree dated 09-09-2022.

   • Defendant carried the matter in A.S. No. 6 of 2023 before the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty. The first appellate Court framed issues, considered rival contentions and, by judgment dated 08-01-2025, confirmed the decree of the trial Court, thus dismissing the appeal.

2. Second Appeal and “substantial questions of law” (Paras 3–5):

   • Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

   • Learned counsel for the appellant took the Court through the “substantial questions of law” formulated in the memorandum of appeal.

   • The High Court perused those questions and the record and noted that both the trial Court and the first appellate Court had returned concurrent findings of fact on the core issue of consideration and liability.

3. Finding of absence of substantial question of law (Para 5):

   • Having regard to:

     • the nature of the findings recorded by the trial Court on Issue No.2, and

     • their affirmation by the first appellate Court,
       the High Court held that no substantive/substantial question of law arose for consideration in the Second Appeal.

   • Thus, even on merits, the Second Appeal did not satisfy the threshold under Section 100 CPC.

4. Condonation of delay – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (Paras 5–6):

   • Apart from merits, the Court considered I.A. No. 1 of 2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 92 days’ delay in filing the Second Appeal.

   • On examining the contents of the supporting affidavit, the Court was not satisfied that sufficient cause was made out and dismissed the condonation petition.

   • Consequently, delay itself was an independent bar, apart from absence of substantial question of law.

5. Final disposition (Paras 6–7):

   • In view of:

     • (i) lack of any substantial question of law, and

     • (ii) refusal to condone delay,
       the High Court declined to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.

   • The Second Appeal was dismissed without costs, and all interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed.