As per case facts, the Plaintiff, who owns properties, sued her brother-in-law (1st Defendant) and buyers, alleging he sold her properties using a fabricated Power of Attorney (PoA). She claimed ... she only granted a limited PoA for management, not sale, while the 1st Defendant asserted he had full authority and she ratified the sale by accepting consideration. The Trial Court invalidated the PoA and sale deeds. The First Appellate Court reversed this, admitting a photocopy of the PoA. The High Court, restoring the Trial Court's decision, ruled the photocopy inadmissible and the PoA invalid. The Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating facts. The question arose whether the High Court correctly intervened by rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence (photocopy of PoA) and concluding the document was not duly executed, without exceeding its Section 100 CPC jurisdiction. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the First Appellate Court improperly relied on an unproven photocopy of the PoA without the necessary legal foundation for secondary evidence. The High Court's correction of this legal error was within its jurisdiction, and thus the appeal was dismissed.