ORDER : R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, JJ. - Leave granted. Six second appeals arising out of the judgment dated 17-8-2001 delivered by the 1st Additional District Judge, Deoria disposing of three civil appeals by a common judgment came to be filed in the High Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. The appeals were heard on the question of admission by the learned Single Judge of the High Court so as to find out if the appeals involved any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code so as to deserve a hearing by the High Court. The High Court formed, Om Prakash v. Shambhu Nath Jaiswal, Second Appeal No. 1345 of 2001, Order dated 21-1-2002(All) an opinion that Second Appeals Nos. 1345 and 1355 of 2001 as also Second Appeals Nos. 1392 and 1456 of 2001 preferred by Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. did not involve any substantial question of law. As to Second Appeals Nos. 1496 and 1453 of 2001 preferred by Mam Chand Kansal, the High Court formed an opinion that these two appeals did involve substantial question of law worth being heard by the High Court. Accordingly, the learned Judge framed the question and admitted these two appeals for hearing on the substantial question of law as formulated by him. 2. As to the four appeals in which the High Court had formed an opinion that they did not involve any substantial question of law, the learned Judge directed in the operative part of the order - "as regards other four appeals, they are connected and therefore no final order is passed in those appeals and only it is held that they do not involve any substantial question of law". The appellants before us, who were respondents in the four appeals in the High Court, have preferred these appeals by special leave. 3. The short submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants before us is that so far as these appeals are concerned, in view of the High Court having arrived at a finding that they did not involve any substantial question of law and hence did not deserve to be admitted for hearing by the High Court, the consequential order of dismissing the appeals as not admitted ought to have been passed. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that in spite of the appeals not involving any substantial question of law yet keeping the appeals pending in the High Court tantamounts to admitting the appeals which is contrary to the spirit of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code . 4. On 10-5-2002 this Court directed limited notice to issue to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why the consequential order of dismissing the appeals, if no substantial question of law arose therein, was not passed by the High Court. The respondents have appeared, shown cause and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondents i.e. for the appellants in the High Court, could not assign any reason to justify the pendency of the appeals in the High Court in spite of the fact that the High Court having formed an opinion that the appeals did not deserve to be heard by the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellants herein submitted that the consequential order of dismissing the appeals would have settled the controversy to the extent of four appeals and the successful party could have reaped the fruits of the decree having achieved finality subject to the person aggrieved pursuing further remedy there against. However, failure to pass a consequential order keeps the fate of the appeals hanging and the parties in suspense for no reason. 6. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. The appeals are therefore allowed. The High Court shall pass the consequential order dismissing the appeals as in its opinion they do not involve any substantial question of law. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Needless to say, this decision is not an expression of opinion of this Court whether the second appeals involve any substantial question of law or not. We have proceeded on the assumption, as found by the High Court, that they do not involve substantial question of law. This decision only emphasises the need for passing the consequential order by the High Court which we are not satisfied to hold that the same could have been withheld at The appeals stand disposed of as above. Appeals allowed.