Krishna Murari JUDGMENT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Regular Second Appeal No. 403 of 2017 whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal in limine thereby confirming the judgment dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rourkela, in RFA No. 15 of 2015.
3. Late Md. Mukim, who expired during the trial, was the Plaintiff and Hasmat Ali was Defendant in the Civil Suit No. 15 of 2009 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela. This suit was filed to seek a declaration that the Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff till 31.03.2003, eviction of the Defendant from the suit scheduled property and for certain other reliefs. The Defendant entered appearance in the said suit and filed the written statement. After trial, the suit was decreed in part on 21.07.2015 and the Defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit shop to the Plaintiff.
4. The Defendant challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 04.08.2017. It is unnecessary to record the other factual matrix of the case for the purpose of deciding the question involved in this appeal.
5. The Defendant filed regular second appeal before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the said appeal in limine. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal is as under:
R.S.A. No. 403 of 2017
6. The order of the High Court is challenged by the Defendant mainly on the ground that it is not supported by any reasons. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the findings of the Trial Court and also by the First Appellate Court are bad in law. He submits that the appeal involves substantial questions of law and that the High Court ought to have entertained the appeal for considering these questions of law. It was argued that, at any rate, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the order of the High Court.
8. Having regard to the contentions urged, the only question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal, filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in limine.
9. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
100. Second appeal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involve a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this Section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the Hig........