Summary
The Court set aside a High Court judgment allowing a second appeal because no substantial question of law had been formulated. Merely noting counsel’s submission that such a question arose did not satisfy Section 100 CPC. It remanded the second appeal for fresh decision under the principles in Santosh Hazari without deciding the underlying injunction dispute.
Issues
- Whether a second appeal could be allowed without identifying and formulating a substantial question of law.
Held
- Existence of a substantial question of law is essential to second-appellate jurisdiction. The High Court must formulate such a question before final hearing; absent one, the appeal merits dismissal at the threshold. (¶ 13–15)
- The High Court recorded counsel’s assertion but did not determine whether a substantial question actually arose or state what it was. Its judgment was therefore legally unsustainable. (¶ 16–18)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and second appeal remanded for fresh decision according to law.