NEK PAL Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Our attention is invited to the impugned judgment of the High Court in a Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC"). Following is the relevant part of the impugned judgment:

(3.) The aforesaid paragraph indicates that at the time of admitting the second appeal under Sec. 100 of the CPC, substantial questions of law were not formulated. Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal or any time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard. The reason is that a second appeal can be finally heard only on a substantial question of law formulated earlier. In fact, the act of finally hearing a second appeal without framing any substantial question of law is itself illegal. There is nothing on record to show that the High Court formulated the substantial questions of law and gave an opportunity to the parties to argue on the basis of those substantial questions of law. All that the High Court says is the Court has confined itself to three substantial questions of law. The High Court did not put the rival Advocates to the notice before the commencement of hearing that it was proposing to hear the appeal on specific substantial questions of law. The High Court could have framed substantial questions of law and heard the appeal after few days so that the Advocates had a notice that the appeal will be heard on specific substantial questions of law.