2. Admission of this second appeal is opposed by the learned Advocate for the respondents relying upon recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2006 SC 1975. Gurdev Kaur and ors. vs. Kaki and ors.

3. On the contrary, Learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary has placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2001(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 786, Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari.

4. According to learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary, three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Hazari's case supra, has dealt with and decided all submissions, on the point as to what is exact meaning of 'a substantial question of law' in second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.

5. According to Mr. Chaudhary, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court discussed in para 12 of said judgment the case reported in ILR 1952 Madras 264 a judgment of Full Bench of Madras High Court, where Lordships of Madras High Court held as follows :

"12. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."

6. Upon considering what is held in said Full Bench Judgment of Madras High Court, Lordships of Supreme Court observed in para 13 thereof, which is eloquent enough and should be preferably quoted ad verbatim as follows;

"13. In Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate vs. Rama Krishna Narain and ors., AIR 1953 SC 521, also it was held that a question of law of importance to the parties was a substantial question of law entitling the appellant to certificate under (the then) section 110 of the Code."

7. Lordships of Supreme Court then laid down in para 14 of the test what a substantial question of law would mean stating and laying down as follows ;_

"14. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by Court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." (Emphasis supplied)

8. In the said background, Their Lordships of Supreme Court formulated in para No. 16 in said Santosh Hazari's case at page 794 of said report a substantial question of law as appeared to Their Lordships found involved in said case, which is quoted ad verbatim as below, remanded the case for hearing by High Court :-

"Whether on the pleadings and the material brought on record by the defendant, the first Appellate Court was right in holding that the case of adverse possession was made out by the defendant and the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as barred by time under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, more so when such finding was arrived at in reversal of the findings of the trial Court?"

9. Therefore, in the conclusion, according to Mr. Chaudhary, from the question formulated by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court consisting of three Judges Bench, it is clear that a question of law arising between the parties necessary for dispensation of justice without calling upon any adjudication in the factual matrix would be a substantial question of law.

According to Mr. Choudhari, therefore, the test laid down in para 14 of Santosh Hazari's case read together with para 16 thereof pr