JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel.

3. The main submission which has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court without framing any substantial question of law.

4. In our opinion, a substantial question of law is not required to be framed if the High Court decides to dismiss the second appeal at an admission stage. Only in a case where the second appeal is admitted or is decided finally by allowing the same, a substantial question of law is required to be framed by the High Court.

5. In the instant case, no substantial question of law was involved in the second appeal and therefore, the High Court had rightly dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage by passing the impugned order. We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this Petition.

6. A request has been made by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appellants are tenants and doing their business in the shops in question for the last 35 years and therefore, some time may be granted to them for vacating the shops.

7. Looking at the afore-stated facts, we direct that the app