Second appeal requires a substantial question of law, and prompt injunction relief may still lie against an ex-licensee.

Section 100 CPC requires the High Court, in second appeal, to formulate a substantial question of law before disturbing concurrent findings of fact; reversal without doing so is procedurally unsustainable. In disputes with ex-licensees, a suit for mandatory injunction may remain maintainable after termination of the licence if filed with reasonable promptitude and the delay is explained; the issue depends on the facts and pleadings, and an unpleaded objection raised for the first time in second appeal will not ordinarily defeat the claim. The judgment also notes that a delayed, unexplained approach may instead call for a possession suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent findings in second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether a suit for mandatory injunction against an ex-licensee was maintainable when filed after termination of the licence.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent findings in second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law before interfering with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal. Where the High Court does not do so, its reversal of the lower courts' findings is procedurally unsound. Although the matter could ordinarily be remitted, the dispute was examined finally in view of the lapse of time and the appellants' entitlement on merits.

Conclusion: The High Court's reversal without framing a substantial question of law was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for mandatory injunction against an ex-licensee was maintainable when filed after termination of the licence.

Analysis: An ex-licensee does not become a trespasser the moment the licence ends; the licensor may still sue for mandatory injunction if the suit is brought with promptitude and within a reasonable time. The question is fact-dependent and turns on whether the delay is explained and whether the licensee was allowed time to wind up business or arrange affairs. A delayed, unexplained approach may require a suit for possession, but where the delay is not shown to be unreasonable and the explanation is plausible, the suit for injunction remains maintainable. The plea of non-maintainability raised for the first time in second appeal, without specific pleadings or evidence on unreasonable delay, could not defeat the suit.

Conclusion: The suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable and the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the appellants' claim succeeded on the maintainability and procedural issues raised in second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, reversal of concurrent findings requires compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a licensor may seek mandatory injunction against an ex-licensee if the suit is instituted within a reasonable time after termination of the licence.

---