Second appeal jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC requires a substantial question of law before interference with findings of fact.

Section 100 CPC confines second appeals to substantial questions of law, and after the 1976 amendment the High Court must formulate that question and hear the appeal on it before interfering with the first appellate decree. Where no substantial question of law is framed or decided, reversal of concurrent findings of fact is not sustainable. The note states that the impugned judgment could not stand and was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a High Court can allow a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without formulating a substantial question of law and hearing the appeal on that question.

Analysis: Section 100 CPC restricts the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law. After the 1976 amendment, formulation of such question is mandatory, and the appeal must ordinarily be heard on the question so formulated. The impugned judgment did not show that any substantial question of law had been framed or that the second appeal was decided on such formulated question. In the absence of compliance with this statutory requirement, interference with the decree of the first appellate court was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court's judgment could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the appellant, with the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that the power of the High Court in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot be exercised to reverse concurrent findings of fact without first framing and deciding such question.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court must formulate and decide a substantial question of law before interfering with the decree under challenge.

---