IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any substantial question of law having been formulated, a judgment in second appeal cannot be maintained.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the second appeal filed in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’). The second appeal was filed by the respondents before the High Court questioning correctness of the judgment and decree dated 25.10.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. The learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, vide which the Suit of the present appellant, who was the defendant in the Suit was decreed. The Suit was filed for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff had become owner of the suit property by way of extinguishment of equity of redemption qua the rights of the defendants and further with consequential relief of restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property in favour of any body, as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The respondents contested the suit and filed written statements. Four issues were framed and evidence was laid. After considering the evidence brought on record, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.1997 decreed the Suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 25.10.1999.

3. As noted above, the defendants filed the second appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and the Suit was dismissed. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second appeal was dismissed without formulating any question of law, which is a mandatory requirement of Section 100 of the CPC. Several other points on the merits of the case were also urged.

4. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on considering the memorandum of appeal and the grounds indicated therein, the High Court had allowed the second appeal and, therefore, there was nothing wrong. It is stated that after considering the materials on record, the High Court had recorded its findings that the suit deserves to be dismissed.

5. It is further submitted that though no substantial question of law was formulated before the Second Appeal was adjudicated, yet that is permissible, because proviso to sub Section (5) of Section 100 of the Code permits the High Court to decide a second appeal on a different substantial question of law subject to recording of reasons.

6. Section 100 of the Code deals with “second appeal”. The provision reads as follows:

“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 the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

7. A perusal of the impugned ju