JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. — Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the Second Appeal ( RSA No. 930 of 1991) filed by the respondent.

2. Though many points are urged, primarily it was submitted that the Second Appeal was allowed without formulating a substantial question of law.

3. In view of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “The Code”) the Memorandum of Appeal shall precisely state substantial question or questions of law involved in the appeal as required under sub-section (3) of Section 100. Where the High Court is satisfied that in any case any substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question under sub-section (4) and the Second Appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated as stated in sub-section (5) of Section 100.

4. Section 100 of the Code deals with “Second Appeal”. The provision reads as follows:

“Section 100–(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if t