ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. A suit for possession and claiming certain other reliefs also, filed by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) on the basis of sale deed dated 18th November, 1968, was decreed by the trial court. An appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court, was allowed by the first appellate court, inter-alia, finding that the sale deed was not a genuine document and had also not been acted upon. On a second appeal, filed in the High Court, judgment and decree of the first appellate court was reversed. A finding was recorded to the effect that sale deed dated 17th October, 1961 had become final and that it had also been acted upon. The order was made by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 208/90) filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment of the High Court is under challenge before us. 3. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the High Court while hearing the RSA totally ignored mandatary provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. and proceeded to reverse the decree/judgment of the first appellate court without even framing even a question of law, muchless a substantial question of law, thereby vitiating the judgment of the High Court. 4. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments in Panchugopal Barua and Others vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 713 and Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 438 in support of his submissions. 5. We have perused the judgment of the High Court and find that learned Single Judge appears to have overlooked the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. as well as the law settled by this Court. The judgment of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. 6. We, consequently, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 27th November, 1997 in R.S.A. No. 208 of 1990 and remand the matter to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7. The High Court shall consider the question, whether any substantial question of law arises in the case, and if so, then after framing such a question/questions, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the parties. 7. The High Court shall consider the question, whether any substantial question of law arises in the case, and if so, then after framing such a question/questions, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the parties. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion by us on the merits of the controversy between the parties. 8. The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously. 9. No costs.