JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Delay is condoned. Leave is granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 353/1993 dated May 16, 2000. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. A perusal of the judgment shows that the High Court has not frame any substantial question of law before proceeding to dispose of the second appeal. This Court has in Panchugopal Barua and others v Umesh Chandra Goswami and others [ (1997) 4 SCC 713 ]; Kshites Chandra Parkait v. Santosh Kumar Parkait and others [ (1997) 5 SCC 438 ]; The Tehsildar and others v. G. V. Gopalakrishnappa and others (disposed of on 25.9.2000) and Dyamappa H. Gondar v. Ganeshapp S. Sudambi and Another [2000 (8) SLT 19] (disposed of on 28.9.2000) held that having regard to the provisions of sections 100 and 101, CPC the High Court can entertain the second appeal only when a substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first appellate Court As the High Court has not framed such a question but decided the second appeal on fact and reversed the first appellate Court's judgment and decree, we have no option except to set aside the judgment and decree under appeal and remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal according to law. The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside, the second appeal is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now consider whether any substantial question of law arises from the judgment of the first appellate Court and if so, to frame the question and dispose of the appeal on that question. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.