- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In this appeal, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the second appeal the High Court has framed the following substantial question of law; "Whether it being an admitted position that Raipur Development plan was in force in the area in question, the decree passed by the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiff-respondents permitting them to construct on the entire land is contrary to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. "
(3.) Instead of deciding the said question, the High Court has decided the second appeal on facts. It is, therefore, contended that there is total non-application of mind by the High Court to the substantial question of law which was framed at the time of admission of second appeal.;