Substantial question of law is mandatory in second appeal; reversal without framing it is beyond jurisdiction.

In a second appeal, the High Court's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC, and it must first identify and formulate such a question before hearing the appeal. Sections 101 and 103 do not permit reversal of the first appellate decree on merits unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. Reversing the decree without framing a substantial question of law is therefore legally unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could reverse the first appellate decree in second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The second appellate jurisdiction is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law. The High Court must first satisfy itself that such a question arises and then formulate it for hearing. Section 101 bars a second appeal except on the ground mentioned in Section 100, and Section 103 permits determination of issues of fact only within the limited circumstances contemplated by law. Reversal of the first appellate decree without formulation of a substantial question of law is impermissible and renders the judgment legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court acted without jurisdiction in reversing the first appellate decree without framing a substantial question of law, and that judgment was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the second appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, formulation of a substantial question of law is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, and a reversal on merits without such formulation is invalid.

---