SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.S. Anand, C.J.I. and V.N. Khare, JJ.

Civil Appeal No 478 of 2000. D/d. 21.1.2000.

Shankarappa M. Mutanki - Appellant

Versus

B. M. Mutanki - Respondent

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 - Second appeal - Substantial question of law - Non formulation of - Modification of decree of trial court - Judgment and decree passed by High Court set aside - Case remanded to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

[Para 2]

Cases Referred :-

K. Sathish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, (1997) 5 SCC 438 .

Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997)4 SCC 713 .

JUDGMENT

A.S. Anand, C.J.I., J. - Leave granted.

2. 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 K. Sathish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438 and Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997)4 SCC 713 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, C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs. Let the appeal be decided expeditiously.

Order accordingly.