MATHAKALA KRISHNAIAH Vs. V RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By the impugned judgment a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reserved the Appellate Courts judgment and decree passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Nellore. The present respondent was the plaintiff in the original suit which was on the file of 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Nellore. He was the appellant before the High Court. Though the trial Court had decided in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein, as noted above the first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. The High Court directed restoration of the judgment and decree of the trial Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court.

(3.) Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court without framing a substantial question of law as enjoined by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code). The High Court can only exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code in Second Appeal on the basis of substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting appeal. A Second Appeal can be heard and decided only on the basis of substantial question of law, if any. The judgment rendered by the High Court in Second appeal without following the aforesaid procedure is not sustainable in law.