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
2 paragraphs · 194 wordsDr. A.S. Anand, C.J.—Leave granted.
We find that the learned Single Judge upset the finding of the Appellate Court and modified the decree of the trial court in a Regular Second Appeal without framing any question of law or even indicating what substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. It appears that the learned Judge overlooked the requirement of Section 100 C.P.C., as amended. It has been repeatedly held by this Court in Kshitish Chandra Purkait Vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and others, and Panchugopal Barua and others Vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami and others, that while hearing a Second Appeal, the Court does not acquire any jurisdiction to deal with it unless the question involved is a substantial question of law and the same is formulated. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to succeed and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 100. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.