( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THIS appeal, filed by the defendants in the suit for partition, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second appeal No. 187 of 2001 in which the High Court dismissed the appeal on merit. The High Court placed reliance on its previous decision in the case of mohd. Sa v. Alli Sa. The learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge observed:"in my opinion the legal issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the abovesaid judgment of this Court which binds me as well. This second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. "the question involved in the case was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff was entitled to claim a share in the properties granted in the name of Kasimsaheb, one of the owners of the original holder of the village office. It appears that the learned Single Judge did not dismiss the second appeal in limine but disposed of the same on merit without formulating any substantial question of law. Section 100 (4) of the Code of civil Procedure provides that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question and in sub-section (5) it is laid down that 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. In view of the express statutory mandate the High Court should have formulated the substantial question of law which, in its opinion, arose for consideration in the case and thereafter proceeded to decide the appeal. This position has been clarified in several judgments/orders passed by this Court in different cases. Non-compliance with the express statutory mandate, which is of a mandatory nature, has vitiated the judgment in the case. ( 3 ) IN the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment under challenge should be set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal. Non-compliance with the express statutory mandate, which is of a mandatory nature, has vitiated the judgment in the case. ( 3 ) IN the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment under challenge should be set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal. Therefore, without entering into merits of the case we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under challenge on the short question noted above and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal of the second appeal in accordance with law after formulating the substantial question of law and after hearing the parties. The High Court is requested to dispose of the second appeal as expeditiously as possible. No costs.