https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465770 In a second appeal from a suit for permanent injunction, the dominant issue was whether the HC erred under CPC s.100 by dismissing the appeal without formulating a substantial question of law. The SC held that formulation is mandatory only where the HC is satisfied that a substantial question of law arises; where the first appellate findings disclose no legal infirmity, the HC is not obliged to frame any question and may dismiss the appeal. The SC also upheld rejection of additional evidence under O.41 r.27 CPC, as the sought revenue records were irrelevant to the appellants' claimed land and the controversy had already been understood and tried on evidence. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 11:56:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465770 In a second appeal from a suit for permanent injunction, the dominant issue was whether the HC erred under CPC s.100 by dismissing the appeal without formulating a substantial question of law. The SC held that formulation is mandatory only where the HC is satisfied that a substantial question of law arises; where the first appellate findings disclose no legal infirmity, the HC is not obliged to frame any question and may dismiss the appeal. The SC also upheld rejection of additional evidence under O.41 r.27 CPC, as the sought revenue records were irrelevant to the appellants' claimed land and the controversy had already been understood and tried on evidence. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465770