- (1.) Heard Sri Badrinath Shukla, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Although the cause list has been revised, none appears on behalf of the Appellant. The recall application No. 2949 of 2011 along with condonation of delay application is listed for orders today. In view of the averments made in the affidavit supporting the condonation of delay application the delay in filing the recall application is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed.
(2.) According to Sri Shukla when a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is admitted the Court is required to frame/formulate the substantial questions of law for decision of the appeal and in the present case under the order dated 21.12.1999 this appeal was admitted but the Court did not formulate any substantial question of law. He therefore states that the order dated 21.12.1999 admitting the appeal be recalled.
(3.) In support of his contention Sri Shukla has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Narayanan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Ors.,1 as also in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Mangala @ Ramesh Chand v. Harish Chand and Anr.,2 and Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors..3;