Second appeal must contain proper reasons; SC set aside an unreasoned decree and remitted the matter for fresh disposal.

The SC held that the availability of a Letters Patent appeal is a relevant factor when special leave is sought under Article 136, but there is no inflexible rule requiring refusal or revocation merely because that remedy was not first pursued; the objection was therefore rejected. It further held that a second appellate decree must comply with Section 100 CPC and disclose proper judicial reasoning, and a judgment lacking reasons cannot be sustained as a valid adjudication. The High Court's decree was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law, leaving the underlying merits open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether special leave under Article 136 should be revoked or the appeal dismissed because the appellants had not sought leave to file a Letters Patent appeal before approaching the Court. (ii) Whether the High Court's decree in second appeal, which was framed without proper judicial reasoning, could be sustained and, if not, what relief should follow.

Issue (i): Whether special leave under Article 136 should be revoked or the appeal dismissed because the appellants had not sought leave to file a Letters Patent appeal before approaching the Court.

Analysis: The availability of a Letters Patent appeal is a relevant circumstance when a party seeks special leave against a second appellate judgment. Ordinarily, that remedy should be pursued first, and the Court may, in an appropriate case, refuse to interfere or revoke leave already granted if the facts justify that course. But no inflexible rule can be laid down that special leave must always be refused or revoked whenever such a remedy was not pursued. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 depends on the facts of each case, and the point may be considered at the final hearing where it was not conclusively decided earlier.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected, and the appeal was not dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's decree in second appeal, which was framed without proper judicial reasoning, could be sustained and, if not, what relief should follow.

Analysis: A second appellate judgment must conform to the limits of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and must disclose a proper judicial approach. A decree that reads like a bare award, without the reasons expected of a judgment, does not satisfy the basic requirements of adjudication. Since the infirmity in the High Court's decision was substantial, the Court declined to affirm the decree on merits and set it aside so that the matter could be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The High Court's decree in second appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained relief because the impugned second appellate decree was annulled and the case was sent back for fresh adjudication, while the merits of the underlying dispute were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appellate judgment must contain proper judicial reasoning and comply with the limits of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and where it does not, the decree may be set aside and remitted without deciding the merits.

---