In Brief
A temple (plaintiff) sued to evict a woman from its property. The trial court and first appellate court ruled in the temple's favour, but the High Court allowed the defendant's second appeal and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court held the High Court erred procedurally: it failed to frame a substantial question of law at the time of admitting the second appeal (as required by Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure), instead framing questions only in the final judgment. This violated the mandatory procedure governing second appeals. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for the High Court to reconsider the second appeal while following the correct procedural steps, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.