Reasoned dismissal required in second appeals when substantial questions of law were already framed under civil procedure rules.

A final order dismissing a second appeal after substantial questions of law had already been framed must still briefly explain why those questions are not substantial. A bare statement that no substantial question of law arises is insufficient where the appeal was admitted on formulated questions, because Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates a reasoned response to the respondent's contention. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal without reasons was unsustainable and directed restoration of the matter to the High Court for decision on merits under Section 100 CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the second appeal, after earlier framing substantial questions of law, could be sustained when the final order gave no reasons for holding that no substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: Under Section 100(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent may contend that the case does not involve the formulated questions, but the final order must still briefly indicate why the previously framed questions are found not to be substantial questions of law. A bare conclusion that no substantial question of law arises, without reasons, is not sufficient where the appeal had earlier been admitted on formulated questions.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the second appeal was unsustainable and the matter was directed to be restored to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---