Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 6.12.1994 passed by Board of Revenue, allowing the second appeal dated 29.4.1995 and dismissing the review application.
(3.) The main arguments advanced by the leaned Counsel for the petitioner is that Board of Revenue decided the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law for decision. It has been further alleged that under the provision of section 100 CPC, read with sub-section 4 of section 331 and section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R Act, second appeals can be heard and decided only on substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon. Apex Court, Kshitesh Chandra Purakrit v. Santosh Kumar Purakrit and another, 1997 (5) SCC 438; Sheel Chandra v. Prakash Chandra, 1998 (89) RD 623 B. Basavraj v. M. Sadique Ali., 2000 (Suppl.) RD 188.;