Second appeal under Section 100 CPC requires a formulated substantial question of law before the High Court can hear it.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure confines second appeals to substantial questions of law, requires the appellant to state such a question, and obliges the High Court to satisfy itself that the question exists and to formulate it before hearing the appeal. Pure questions of fact and concurrent findings cannot be reopened except within recognised legal exceptions. Where the High Court decided the second appeal without formulating any substantial question of law or hearing the matter on that basis, the statutory procedure was not complied with, so the judgment was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be sustained when the High Court had not formulated any substantial question of law and had not heard the appeal on such formulated question.

Analysis: Section 100, as amended, requires the memorandum of appeal to state the substantial question of law, obliges the High Court to satisfy itself that such a question exists, and mandates formulation of that question before the appeal is heard. The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and does not extend to reopening pure questions of fact or concurrent findings, except where the case falls within recognized legal exceptions. The impugned judgment did not show formulation of any substantial question of law or hearing on that basis, so the statutory procedure was not followed.

Conclusion: The second appeal could not be maintained in the manner in which it was decided by the High Court, and the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after compliance with Section 100.

---