Summary
The Supreme Court remanded two second appeals and connected revisions because the High Court dismissed them on an unframed maintainability question without answering the substantial questions already formulated. Section 100 CPC required the prescribed procedure before deciding any additional substantial question.
Issues
- Whether second appeals could be dismissed on an unframed question without following Section 100(5).
Provisions considered
- Section 100(4)–(5) and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Second appeals must be decided on formulated substantial questions; another such question may be taken up with recorded reasons, preserving the respondent’s right to contest whether a formulated question qualifies. (¶ 17–20)
Held
- The High Court had framed three substantial questions but answered none, instead dismissing on maintainability without formulating that additional question under the statutory proviso. The disposal was legally unsustainable. (¶ 17–20)
- The respondents could renew their pleas after remand. No merits opinion was expressed; all four connected proceedings required fresh disposal, with Section 100 requirements observed for the second appeals. (¶ 21–23)
Result
Appeals allowed; common High Court order set aside; second appeals and connected revision petitions remanded for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order or this remand order.