This compilation indexes 12 High Court rulings on second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), pronounced between 27 July 2026 and 6 August 2026. The rulings span the Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, Himachal Pradesh, and Tripura High Courts and cover a range of procedural and substantive grounds including delay condonation, leave-to-appeal defects, property disputes, and questions of law arising from first appellate court judgments. This index is intended for civil litigation researchers, legal practitioners, and judicial administration teams tracking the evolving jurisprudence on the scope and limits of second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, and no reliance should be placed on these summaries without independently verifying the full text of each judgment.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the statutory basis for second appeals to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to the High Court. The provision restricts the High Court's jurisdiction to cases involving a substantial question of law, which must be formulated at the time of admission. The amendment introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 significantly narrowed the scope of second appellate jurisdiction by expressly excluding re-appreciation of evidence and limiting the Court's inquiry to the substantial question of law so framed, unless the Court is satisfied that the case also raises any other substantial question of law not initially formulated.

The 12 rulings

1. N.Kartheesan vs N.Durairah

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second appeal (S.A. No.1118 of 2014) was filed under Section 100 of the CPC to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4063 of 2010 by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, as confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.365 of 2013 by the XIX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, by judgment and decree dated 15.04.2014. The appeal was preferred by the first defendant against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court; the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

2. Abdul Muthalif(Died) And Others vs Ramasamy Padayachi(Died)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second appeal (S.A. No.544 of 2014) was filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2013 in A.S.No.5 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Ariyalur, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1987 in O.S.No.79 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam. The matter was complicated by the deaths of the original sole appellant and several respondents, with legal heirs substituted on record through a series of court orders in 2022; the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

3. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko vs Munnan And 4 Others

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter arose as an application under Section 378 (defective) (Application U/S 378 Defective No. 147 of 2024) in which the State of U.P. sought leave to appeal, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 814 days. The court noted that the trial court's judgment was dated 10.06.2022, yet the State took more than two years to apply for a certified copy of the judgment (applied on 21.08.2024), and the appeal itself was filed on 30.11.2024; the court characterised this as reflecting a "lackadaisical attitude" arising from "inherited bureaucratic lackadaisical attitude imbibed with note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos," and the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

4. Arun Birla vs Nirmal Singh & Anr

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second regular appeal (RSA 57/2018) was filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2017 of the learned District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who had set aside the judgment dated 20.07.2017 of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi, which had restrained the defendants from creating hindrance or obstruction in the use of the space on the lower ground floor for parking by the plaintiff. The original civil suit (Civil Suit No. 26/2016) had been filed by the plaintiffs for directions to the defendant to restore the relevant access; the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

5. Smt. Horo Priya Sarkar vs Smt. Kanchana Sarkar

Bench: Tripura High Court
Date: 3 August 2026
Sections engaged: 100, 96
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second appeal (RSA No.40 of 2023) was filed under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908, challenging the judgment dated 05.08.2023 and decree dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Learned District Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, in Title Appeal 02 of 2021. The matter was heard on 09.07.2026 and the judgment delivered on 03.08.2026; the case was marked as fit for reporting, though the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

6. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of vs Ram Singar Gupta And 4 Others

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 31 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 197 of 2025) involved two applications: Application No.3 of 2026 sought condonation of delay in filing a recall application, which the court found satisfactory and allowed; Application No.4 of 2026 sought recall of the order dated 22.01.2026 by which the review application had been dismissed for want of prosecution after the applicant failed to appear despite the case being called repeatedly. The court found the reasons stated in the affidavit in support of the recall application to be satisfactory; the full outcome of the underlying matter is not captured in the source preview.

7. Ravinder Kumar vs Chattar Singh

Bench: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100, 38
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The present appeal (RSA No. 134/2026) arose out of the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.12.2024 of the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Per the source preview, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interference, causing nuisance, and raising forcible and illegal construction over joint and undivided land comprised in Khewat No. 85/347, Khatoni No.105/404, Khasra No. 508, measuring 02-03-00 Bighas, situated at Mohal Haripur, Patwar Circle Haripur; the full outcome of the second appeal is not captured in the source preview.

8. Anil Babbar vs Upasana Kapoor & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The regular second appeal (RSA 90/2026) was filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2025, whereby the learned District Judge-05, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, upheld the dismissal of a suit for recovery of damages of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of alleged defamatory statements and Facebook posts. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff against concurrent findings on the defamation claim; the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

9. S. Rajendran vs K. Manivannan

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100, 115
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second appeal (S.A. No.1043 of 2013) was filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Salem dated 28.11.2008 in A.S.No.52 of 2008, which confirmed the decree and judgment of the Sub Judge, Sankari in O.S.No.166 of 2001 dated 20.04.2006. The matter was heard together with C.R.P.No.1666 of 2019 and associated civil miscellaneous petitions; a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to receive additional evidence, including a sale deed dated 30.07.2010 and a power of attorney dated 05.02.2010, was also filed by the appellant, and the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

10. R.Saraswathi vs R.Rajendran(Died)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The second appeal (S.A. No. 1085 of 2014) was filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2014 in A.S.No.460 of 2013 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2013 in O.S.No.10501 of 2010 of the VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. The original respondent died during the pendency of the appeal, and legal representatives were brought on record vide court order dated 20.09.2023; the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

11. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko vs Prakash @ Umesh Saroj

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 27 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter (Application U/S 378 Defective No. 91 of 2025) involved the State of U.P. seeking leave to appeal with a condonation of delay of 406 days. Per the source preview, the trial court's judgment was dated 16.02.2024, permission for filing the appeal was granted on 05.06.2024, yet the appeal was itself filed on 09.07.2025; the court characterised this as reflecting a "lackadaisical attitude" and "gross administrative lethargy and laxity," with the ground offered being "inherited bureaucratic lackadaisical attitude imbibed with note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos," and the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

12. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home vs Shashi Ranjan Kumar Giri And 5 Others

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 27 July 2026
Sections engaged: 100
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter (Application U/S 378 Defective No. 103 of 2025) involved the State of U.P. seeking leave to appeal with a condonation of delay of 344 days. Per the source preview, the trial court's judgment was dated 02.04.2024, no date was indicated as to when permission to file the appeal had been granted, and the appeal itself was filed on 26.07.2025; the court noted that this "reflects a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the appellant apart from gross" administrative delay, employing the same standard language used in related State-filed defective applications, and the full outcome is not captured in the source preview.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

State of U.P. delay condonation as a recurring theme. Cases 3, 11, and 12 all involve the State of U.P. (through the Principal Secretary, Home Department) seeking condonation of substantial delays — 814 days, 406 days, and 344 days respectively — in filing leave-to-appeal applications. In each instance the source preview records the court using near-identical language criticising "inherited bureaucratic lackadaisical attitude imbibed with note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos," suggesting a consistent judicial response to State-filed delay applications at the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench).
Madras High Court concentration of property and civil disputes. Cases 1, 2, 9, and 10 were all heard before the Madras High Court and all involve long-pending second appeals (S.A. numbers from 2013 and 2014) being pronounced in 2026 after reservation in early 2026. This reflects the significant lag between reservation and pronouncement in second appeal matters, as well as the volume of property and civil decree litigation reaching the Madras High Court under Section 100 CPC.
Substitution of deceased parties as a procedural complication. Cases 2 and 10 both involve the death of original parties — the sole appellant in Case 2 and the first respondent in Case 10 — requiring legal representatives to be brought on record through court orders during the pendency of the second appeal. This pattern illustrates the multi-decade duration of some second appeal proceedings under Section 100 CPC.
Multi-application complexity in single proceedings. Cases 6 and 9 demonstrate the layering of ancillary applications within a single second appeal file: Case 6 involved a recall application alongside a condonation application within review proceedings, while Case 9 involved companion civil revision petitions and a petition for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC being heard alongside the main second appeal.
Geographic spread of second appellate jurisdiction. The 12 rulings span five High Courts — Madras, Delhi, Allahabad, Himachal Pradesh, and Tripura — confirming that second appeals under Section 100 CPC are a PAN-India procedural vehicle across diverse subject matters including property disputes, injunctions, defamation claims, and civil decree enforcement.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a structured index of second appeal rulings under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as they appear in the TaxNoticeAI legal corpus. Researchers should treat each entry as a pointer to the full judgment rather than a self-contained summary: the text previews on which the procedural notes are based are partial, and the outcomes for all 12 cases are recorded as "Outcome not specified in source," meaning the dispositive portions of these judgments are not fully captured in this index. Before relying on any ruling for litigation strategy or academic writing, the complete judgment should be sourced directly from the relevant High Court portal or from indiankanoon.org using the case name, bench, and date fields provided.

Researchers should also check whether any of these rulings have been subsequently stayed, reversed, or appealed to the Supreme Court of India. High Court judgments in second appeals can be subject to Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and a stay or reversal would materially affect the precedential value of the ruling. The TaxNoticeAI corpus is updated on a rolling basis, but final verification against the court's official cause-list records and the Supreme Court's case-status portal is recommended.

Finally, for cases involving the State of U.P. and delay condonation (Cases 3, 11, and 12), researchers interested in the administrative law dimension of condonation jurisprudence should cross-reference the relevant Supreme Court precedents on the standard of "sufficient cause" for government litigants, as the Allahabad High Court's observations in these matters engage a well-developed body of case law on State delay that extends beyond the four corners of the individual proceedings indexed here.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 100 CPC Second Appeals: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)