Fact and law are treated differently on appeal
A first appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure allows the appellate court to reconsider both findings of fact and points of law, but it will still ordinarily give weight to the trial court's assessment of witnesses it actually saw and heard, particularly where that assessment turns on credibility rather than on documents. A second appeal, by contrast, is confined to a substantial question of law, which the High Court must formulate at admission, and an appeal that does not genuinely raise such a question, however unhappy the appellant is with the factual outcome, is not maintainable in that form.
Special leave is discretionary, and treated that way
A special leave petition under Article 136 is not an appeal as of right; the Supreme Court exercises a wide discretion over whether to grant leave at all, and typically reserves that discretion for cases involving a substantial question of law of general importance, or a manifest miscarriage of justice, rather than every case where the petitioner disagrees with the outcome below. A petition framed as though the Court will simply re-examine the facts, without identifying a genuine legal or jurisdictional error, is unlikely to be entertained.
Stay does not follow automatically from filing an appeal
Filing an appeal does not, by itself, suspend the operation of the order or decree under challenge; a separate application for stay has to be made and argued on its own merits, generally requiring the appellant to show a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favours a stay. Where a money decree is involved, courts frequently condition a stay on deposit of some or all of the decretal amount, and preparing the client for that possibility at the outset avoids an unwelcome surprise later.
Limitation and the explanation for delay
Every appeal has a limitation period running from the date of the order or decree, and an appeal filed beyond that period needs an application for condonation of delay supported by a specific, credible explanation, since courts are not obliged to condone delay simply because it is asked for. A vague or generic explanation, such as attributing the entire delay to counsel without further detail, is treated with some scepticism, and a properly documented account of what caused the delay materially improves the chance of condonation.
