The High Court is not required to frame a substantial question of law if the second appeal is dismissed at an admission stage.

Headnote:
Substantial Question of Law - Second Appeal - The High Court is not required to frame a substantial question of law if the second appeal is dismissed at an admission stage. Only when the second appeal is admitted or decided finally by allowing the same, a substantial question of law is required to be framed by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants argued that the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court without framing any substantial question of law.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that 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.
Issues: Dismissal of second appeal without framing substantial question of law
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were granted time till 31st December, 2016, to vacate the shops, with the direction to continue paying mesne profit to the respondent.

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 appellants shall not be evicted till 31st December, 2016, on filing of usual undertakings by them within four weeks from today.

8. In the meantime, by way of mesne profit the appellants shall continue to pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) every month to the respondent. The amount deposited by the appellants with this Court shall be paid to the respondent by way of account payee cheque and the cheque shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent. The said amount shall be treated as costs.

9. The appeal is disposed of as dismissed with the above directions. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document