Summary
The High Court could not reverse an eviction decree in second appeal by framing substantial questions of law for the first time in its final judgment. Section 100 requires formulation before final adjudication and an opportunity for the respondent to address the formulated questions. Additional questions require recorded reasons under the proviso. The judgment was set aside and the second appeal remanded without deciding the underlying eviction dispute.
Issues
- Whether substantial questions could first be framed and answered in the final second-appeal judgment.
- What procedure should govern reconsideration on remand.
Provisions considered
- Section 100(4)–(5) and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Required timely formulation of substantial questions and hearing on those questions; additional questions could be entertained with recorded reasons, not first introduced in the final judgment. (¶ 11–16)
Held
- The High Court framed two questions only while delivering judgment, without following the admission-stage requirement or the procedure for additional questions. That method breached mandatory Section 100 requirements. (¶ 11–13)
- Formulation defines the scope of final hearing and protects the respondent’s opportunity to contend that the proposed question does not arise. Absence of proper formulation is a jurisdictional defect, regardless of the eventual result. (¶ 13–15)
- On remand the High Court must hear the appellant, formulate proper substantial questions if any arise, and decide the appeal under the statutory procedure. The Supreme Court expressed no view on the merits. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside; second appeal remanded for fresh decision following Section 100, uninfluenced by merits observations. Expeditious disposal requested, preferably within six months of receipt of the judgment.