- (1.) BY the impugned order dtd. 5/4/1999/6/4/19991 the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (sic High Court of Bombay at Bombay), hearing the second appeal has reversed the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below without framing a substantial question of law arising in the appeal as required under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(2.) THIS Court in a catena of decisions including in M.S.V. Raja Vs. Seeni Thevar, has held that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under S. 100 C.P.C. only on the basis of substantial questions of law framed and the second appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law. A judgment rendered by the High Court under S. 100 C.P.C. without following the aforesaid procedure is not sustainable in law. As indicated above, in the present case, the High Court has assumed jurisdiction under S. 100 C.P.C. without framing a substantial question of law. On this short ground, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the case is remitted back to the High Court for Vasant Narayan Karkhanis Vs. Prabhavati Bhalchandra Hajarnis, (1999) 2 MahLJ 889 (Bom) : disposal afresh in accordance with law. The High Court will proceed with the matter only after framing substantial question of law, if it arises in the appeal.
(3.) THE Registry is directed to remit the record of this case to the High Court forthwith. Since the regular second appeals pertain to the year 1991, we would request the High Court to take up the matter and dispose it of as soon as possible in accordance with law.;