ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Delay is condoned.

3. Leave is granted.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 353/1993 dated May 16, 2000. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court.

5. A perusal of the judgment shows that the High Court has not framed any substantial question of law before proceeding to dispose of the Second Appeal. This Court has in Panchugopal Barua & Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors.1; Kshitesh Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Parkait & Ors.2; The Tehsildar & Ors. v. G.V. Gopalakrishnappa & Ors.3 and Dyamappa H. Gondar v. Ganeshappa S. Sudambi & Anr.4, held that having regard to the provisions of Sections 100 and 101 C.P.C., the High Court can entertain the Second Appeal only when a substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first Appellate Court. As the High Court has not framed such a question but decided the Second Appeal on fact and reversed the first Appellate Court s judgment and decree, we have no option except to set aside the judgment and decree under a