Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘Code’). The respondents are the legal heirs of the original plain­tiff-Ishraj Narayan Singh. The original plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land and declaration of want of title of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi, the appellant herein, the defendant No. 3 in the suit. The trial court had decreed the suit but in appeal the First Appellate Court reversed it. The ­respondents filed the second appeal before the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court restored the judgment and ­decree of the trial court and set aside the ­judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.

3. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of law as enjoined by Section 100 of the Code. The High Court can only exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100