hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The question that fell for consideration is, as to whether, a new water channel (khal), had been constructed by the defendants/appellants in violation of the order of injunction. From the jamabandi for the year 1998-99, khasra girdawri P6, and Aks Shijra, it was not proved that there was any water course in existence, in the land in dispute of the plaintiff. No evidence was produced by the defendants, to prove the existence of water course (khal) in the land in dispute since long. The compromise D1, does not bear any date. It does not disclose the khasra nos. in which the defendants reconstructed the khal. The compromise D1 was, thus, of no avail to the defendants. It is evident from the judgements of the Courts below that Gursewak Singh, Advocate (PW6), was appointed as a Local Commissioner, who visited the spot alongwith the halqa Patwari. He submitted the report, indicating therein, the existence of newly constructed temporary khal, in the property of the plaintiff. The khal was constructed by the defendants, as per the evidence produced by the plaintiff. The Courts below, after due scrutiny of the
