ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J.-1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 100 Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 14-8-1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, Neemuch in Civil Appeal No. 25-A of 1977. 2. In the appeal memo the substantial questions of law which according to the appellant arose for determination, were proposed in para 7 0f the memo of appeal. However, while admitting the appeal, this Court vide proceeding dated 8-4-1982, framed only two substantial questions of law. 3. When the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Sangbi started arguing the case, he wanted to raise one additional point of law to assail the judgment of the lower Court, whereupon Shri Waghmare, learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection and submitted that the arguments can be addressed only On the substantial questions of law framed by the Court, while admitting the appeal. Shri Sanghi thereupon filed a written application under the proviso to section 100 C.P.C. submitting therein that he wanted to address the Court on the question of grant of eviction u/s 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, upon which learned counsel for the respondents objected on the ground that there being no substantial question of low framed by the court, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot assail the learned lower Court's finding on the question of bona fide and genuine requirement of the plaintiff for his own business. Thereupon the counsel for the appellant relied upon the proviso to section 100 CPC and bas, therefore, submitted an application for the formulation of the following substantial question of law, in addition to the questions already framed by the Court "Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the finding of the lower Court On the question of bona fide and genuine requirement of the suit accommodation by the plaintiff for his own business, is perverse and also vitiated by reason of illegal approach, wrong assumptions and failure to objectively consider facts, circumstances and evidence of vital import The learned counsel has also detailed the evidence and circumstances which according to him have been overlooked by the lower appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment. 4 In the written reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the appeal was admitted only on two substantial questions of law. 4 In the written reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the appeal was admitted only on two substantial questions of law. The question of law which has now been proposed by the appellant was initially proposed as substantial question of law in the appeal memo itself. The Court applied its mind to the proposed substantial questions of law and framed only two substantial questions of law at the time of admission. The other proposed questions were disallowed or rejected. Therefore, if the same question, which has been rejected by the court earlier is allowed to be raised during the course of arguments, seeking the aid of the proviso to section 100 CPC then it will in effect be a review of the earlier order and such a course of action is not permissible by law It is also stated that the proviso only governs the power of the Court, but does not give any licence to the party to re-agitate the same question which has earlier been rejected by the Court. 5. Roth the learned counsel have addressed the Court at length in respect of the powers of the Court and effect of the proviso to section 100. Some decisions of the different High Courts have also been cited. Both the learned counsel have candidly submitted that there is no direct decision, on this point, of any High Court. However, some decisions of different High Courts have been cited at the Bar which I shall presently deal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that having once rejected the proposed question holding it as not a substantial question of law, if the Court at a latter stage formulates the same question as substantial question of law and hears arguments on that, then it would amount to the review of the earlier order, then the whole purposes of the amendment in the C.P.C. shall be defeated. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proviso empowers the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to do justice to the parties, if the Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involed, but it was not so formulated a the time of admission, the Court can frame such a question even at a later stage. 7. 7. For properly appreciating the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents, it is necessary to first read section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is as under :- "(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 involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed exparte. (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 High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case Involves such question" 8. A plain reading of this section makes it clear that according to subsection (4) of section 100, Civil Procedure Code, the question of law bas to be formulated by the High Court and sub-section (5) of section 100 provides that the appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated and at the time of arguments the respondents shall be at liberty to demonstrate that the case does not involve such question which has been formulated by the Court. The proviso to section 100, however, empower the Court to hear an appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it at the time of admission of the appeal subject to two conditions: Firstly, that the Court should be satisfied that the case involves that question and secondly the reasons for hearing the appeal on any other substantial question of law Other than the questions formulated at the time of the admission have to be recorded. 9. 9. It appears useful to refer to cases cited by the learned counsel for both the parties in support of their respective contentions In Nandlal and another v. Hukumchand 1980 MPRCJ 265 a single Bench of this Court has held that if a ground is taken in the memo of appeal and no substantial question of law has been framed by the Court at the time of the admission. therefore, it can be held th1t the Court must not have found the question to be substantial after examination. The learned Single Judge in para 6 of his judgment has found that the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was although raised in the appeal memo but a substantial question of law was not framed pertaining the question so raised. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Court to go into that question. Still the learned judge examined the matter and found that the argument advanced was without any substance As such, although the learned Single Judge was of the view that once a question is raised by the appellant in the appeal memo and no substantial question of law is formulated at the time of admission on that point, the Court is not bound to go into that question; still the learned Judge examined that question which was raised before him at the time of the argument. Similarly another Single Judge of this Court in Devi v. Kamla 1985 MPWN 276 has held that although the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant were on points beyond the question of law framed by the Court and the Court therefore, was not bound to deal with them. However, in view of the proviso to section 100 (5) of the Civil Procedure Cole, the appellant can be permitted to address the Court on any other question of law not formulated by it. As such, in the aforesaid decision also the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to address the Court on the question of law which was beyond the question of law framed by the Court at the time of admission of appeal. As such, in the aforesaid decision also the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to address the Court on the question of law which was beyond the question of law framed by the Court at the time of admission of appeal. In Duraiswami Gounder and others v. Sundearammal and others 1983 II MLJ 379 a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court has also taken the view that the point raised during the course of the argument may also be taken into consideration on which no substantial question of law was framed. In Sonibai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav and others AIR 1983 Bom. 156 it has been held that if the Court fails to spell out substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal, the Court is empowered to formulate such substantial questions of law as may arise in the Court, at a later stage. 10. As such, from the aforementioned decisions, I am fortified in my view that the Court although not bound to consider the arguments on any question which may arise during the course of the arguments beyond the questions of law formulated at the time of the hearing of the admission of the appeal, still in view of the proviso to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court can always hear the argument on the questions of law other than those formulated at the time of the hearing of the appeal in view of the powers given to the Court contained in proviso to section 100 C.P.C. 11. In the result I find no merit in the contention that once the Court does not formulated a question of law at the time of the admission of an appeal on the points raised in the appeal memo, it is debarred from formulating such question at a later stage and that if such question is formulated at a later stage of the appeal, such formulation shall amount to review of the earlier order. 12. After going through the record and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, I am satisfied that the question proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant for formulating it as a substantial question of Jaw arises in this appeal. Consequently I.A. No. 3975 of 197 submitted by the appellant is allowed. 12. After going through the record and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, I am satisfied that the question proposed by the learned counsel for the appellant for formulating it as a substantial question of Jaw arises in this appeal. Consequently I.A. No. 3975 of 197 submitted by the appellant is allowed. The substantial question of law as proposed by the appellant shall be formulated as an additional substantial question of law and arguments shall be heard on that question. Let the office fix a date for further hearing of the appeal.