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
4 paragraphs · 184 wordsA.P. Misra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.—Leave granted.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
We find that the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1998 disposing of Second Appeal No. 240 of 1998 has interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below without framing any substantial question of law. This Court has repeatedly stated in various decisions that the High Court while disposing of the Second Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should first formulate the substantial question of law if arises, and then dispose of the same in terms of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the High Court has committed the error in disposing of the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law. Accordingly, the said High Court order is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
We remand this case back to the High Court to frame, if any, substantial question of law and after hearing the parties, decide the said question if so arises. With the said observations, the present appeal succeeds. Cost on the parties.