AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 209 wordsLeave granted.
The Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession. The said suit was dismissed. An appeal against the said decree was also dismissed. Thereafter the Plaintiff-respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court without formulating any substantial questions of law, as required under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the CPC allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit. It is against the said judgment the Defendant-appellant is in appeal. This Court on more than one occasion has held that under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is required to frame a substantial question of law and only then it acquires jurisdiction to decide a second appeal on merits. In this case the High Court without framing any substantial question of law has allowed the appeal and this in itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment under appeal. We accordingly, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the matter back to the High Court to decide the appeal only after framing a substantial question of law which may arise in the case.
The appeal is allowed. The High Court may decide the matter expeditiously as possible. No costs.