Second appeals in Punjab: Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act survives, so no substantial question of law is required.

Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 continues to govern second appeals in Punjab because it is a pre-Constitution law preserved by Article 372(1) and does not fall within Article 254. The Court examined Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and held that its saving effect is confined to amendments or provisions inserted in the Code itself, not to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. The earlier view treating Section 41 as repealed was held incorrect, and the Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi was reaffirmed as governing the field for Punjab.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second appeal in the State of Punjab requires framing of a substantial question of law in view of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and whether the contrary view in earlier decisions could be sustained.

Analysis: The Court examined the effect of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with the constitutional status of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. It held that the Punjab Courts Act is a pre-Constitution existing law continued by Article 372(1) of the Constitution of India and not a post-Constitution State enactment attracting Article 254. The Court further held that Section 97(1) of the 1976 Amendment Act applies only to amendments or provisions inserted in the Code itself, and the earlier view treating Section 41 as repealed was incorrect. Accordingly, the Constitution Bench ruling in Pankajakshi governed the field for Punjab.

Conclusion: A second appeal in Punjab does not require framing of a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 because Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 continues to operate.

---