Judgment :-

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal relates to the scope of an appeal against an appellate order under section 12A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (`Act' for short). The State Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068 ME proposing to declare certain lands including the disputed lands as revenue forest. The appellant's predecessor in title filed a written statement before the Forest Settlement Officer under section 6 of the Act in (claim case No.2/1955) claiming title to the disputed lands, which formed part of the proposed reserve forest. The Forest Settlement Officer by common order dated 14.11.1969 rejected his claim inter alia holding that the notified areas were lands at the disposal of the government and the government was entitled to constitute the same as a reserve forest. Feeling aggrieved the appellant's predecessor filed an appeal against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer under section 11 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the first Additional District Judge, Ernakulam by common judgment dated 23.6.1980 holding that the Royal Neet of 1928 ME to which the appellant traced back his title was a genuine document and the notification issued by the Government in respect of the proposed reserve forest was without jurisdiction.

3. The State Government filed an appeal against the said appellate judgment before the High Court under section 12A of the Act. (MSA No.1/1981). The High Court allowed the second appeal and reversed the judgment of the District Judge. The order of the High Court was challenged by the appellant. This Court by order dated 25.11.2003 allowed the civil appeal filed by the appellant and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, with the following observation :

"... some decisions have also been referred, to that the jurisdiction under Section 12A of the Act is akin to Section 100 C.P.C. We feel that since the matter is fit to be remanded for fresh decision this question as raised may also be better canvassed before the High Court for its consideration."

4. When the matter was pending before the High Court on remand, the appellant (who is the 33rd respondent in the said appeal) filed an application (IA No.955/2005) praying that the High Court be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law before proceeding with the hearing of appeal. He contended that the appeal under section 12A was a second appeal; that a second appeal was available only if the case involved any substantial question of law and was governed by the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`Code' for short); and that the High Court should therefore, before hearing the second appeal, formulate the questions of law involved in the appeal. The High Court by the impugned order dated 23.3.2007 dismissed the said application. The High court held that section 12A of the Act did not provide for a "second appeal", but only provides for an appeal against an appellate order and therefore the question of importing the requirements of section 100 of the Code into such an appeal did not arise; that the intention of the legislature in enacting section 12A of the Act, granting a right of appeal against an order passed by the District Court under section 11 of the Act, was not limited to substantial questions of law; and therefore the question of formulating any substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal did not arise.

5. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The appellant contends that an appeal under section 12A of the Act is a `second appeal'; that a second appeal is available only in regard to questions of law and not in regard to any question of fact; that whenever there is a second appeal from a District Court/Civil Court to the High Court, such second appeal will be governed by section 100 of the Code and it will be maintainable only if it involves a substantial