The main legal point established in the judgment is the flexibility of the court to formulate additional substantial questions of law at any stage, provided it is satisfied that the case involves such questions and the importance of recording reasons for such satisfaction.

V.K. Bist, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Mr. B.C. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, while arguing the appeal submitted that the findings on issued no.1 by the 1st Appellate Court are perverse in law as well as in fact and the 1st Appellate Court has failed to decide the issue no.1 in totality in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. He prayed for framing of additional substantial question of law. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further submitted that there is sufficient pleadings in this regard in the memo of appeal as also in the substantial questions framed in the memo of appeal. He submitted that the question, which he is proposing to be framed as additional substantial question of law is essential for just and proper decision of appeal and goes to the root of the matter. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court, reported in 2005 (10) SCC 38 Manicka Poosali (dead) by Lrs. And ors. vs. Anjalai Ammal and anr., 2004 (12) SCC 189 K.G. Shivalingappa (dead) by Lrs. And ors. vs. G.S. Eswarippa and ors. and P. Cxhandrasekharan and ors. vs. S. Kanakrajan and ors.

3. Mr. B.C. Pandey, Senior Advocate submitted that normally the substantial question of law are framed by the High Court at the time of admission of appeal and High court is required to hear the appeal on the Substantial question of law so farmed. But High Court can frame any additional substantial question of law not earlier formulated by it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such question.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents opposed formulation of new substantial question of law on the ground that this cannot be done during the course of arguments. He submitted that ever since the admission of second appeal, the appellants had not pressed for formulation of any other substantial question of law till the arguments of appeal started. He, at a belated stage and in the light of the observations made by the Court, after entering into the arguments on merits requested for formulation of additional substantial question of law. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents submitted that Section 100 of C.P.C. deals with the formulation of substantial question of law and the burden to formulate the same is casted upon the appellant due to the embargo imposed under sub Section 3 of Section 100 C.P.C. as it castes a duty on the appellant to state the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, use of word ‘shall’ in sub Section 3 of Section 100 C.P.C. makes it mandatory for the appellant to formulate substantial question of law at the stage when the appeal itself was being heard. He submitted that the power of High Court to formulate a substantial question of law contained under sub Section 4 of Section 100 C.P.C. would be confined with before the hearing of the second appeal starts on merits in view of the provisions contained under Order XLI Rule 12 C.P.C. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents further submitted that under sub Section 5 of Section 100 C.P.C. the word ‘so’ refers to the substantial question of law as formulated under sub Section 3 & 4 of Section 100 of C.P.C., which contemplates formulation of substantial question before stepping into hearing of the second appeal, because the latitude of sub Section 4 is extended to the High Court for formulation of substantial question of law during the course of hearing of second appeal on substantial question of law neither pleaded by the appellant nor formulated by the High Courts under sub Section 5 of Section 100 of C.P.C. and the same could not be done once the arguments in appeal starts on merits. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 965, AIR 1997 SC- 2517 and (2009) 2 SCC 177.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the responde