ORDER :

1. Though this special leave petition is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Chitambaresh and learned counsel for the first respondent-caveator (the second respondent being the power of attorney holder of the petitioner herein), it is heard finally.

2. Leave granted.

3. The judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 06.01.2023 passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 5085 of 2011 is called into question in this appeal.

4. The main contention raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri V. Chitambaresh, is that the High Court has lost sight of the fact that it was dealing with a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) and disposed of the second appeal as if it was a regular first appeal. In other words, no substantial questions of law, which ought to have been framed and answered in the regular second appeal, were even raised in the impugned judgment, let alone answered. It was next submitted that the regular second appeal must be considered only on substantial questions of law, but the High Court has considered the said appeal as if it was a first appeal a