ORDER 1. The State of Karnataka, defendant in the original suit, is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in the second appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land i.e. temple and surrounding area, claiming to belong to him. The trial court decreed the suit after appreciating the evidence placed on record in the light of the pleadings of the parties and issues that were raised. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, the State filed first appeal. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff, not being satisfied with the judgment of the first appellate court, filed a second appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 3. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the second appeal had been admitted on the following question of law: "Whether the Government making a paltry grant of Rathothsava and maintenance of the ratha or chariot, the contents of Ext. D-l and the public being allowed to visit and worship in the suit temple in the presence of any other evidence to show that it is an endowment, were sufficient for the first appellate court to upset the decree of the trial court to find that the suit temple is a public temple?" 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment suffers from an incurable infirmity, namely, the second appeal was disposed of without there being any substantial question or questions of law that arose for consideration; although, the appeal was admitted on a question of law, as stated above. According to the learned counsel, no substantial question of law at all arose for consideration between the parties. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions a supporting the impugned judgment. He asserted that substantial question of law did arise for consideration, apart from the question of law on which the appeal was admitted as stated in the impugned judgment. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions a supporting the impugned judgment. He asserted that substantial question of law did arise for consideration, apart from the question of law on which the appeal was admitted as stated in the impugned judgment. 6. In our view, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained for the reason that we do not find formulation of any substantial question or questions of law that arose for consideration between the parties, as required under b Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"). The question of law indicated in the impugned judgment on which the appeal was admitted, in our view, does not appear to be a substantial question of law on a plain reading of it. 7. Under the circumstances the civil appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the second appeal is remitted to the High Court to C consider and formulate, if any substantial question or questions of law arise for consideration between the parties under Section 100 of the Code and then proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 8. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the High Court. 9. We must hasten to add that the suit was filed in the year 1964. Having regard to the age of the suit, we expect that the High Court would dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably before the end of March, 2005. 10. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 2-11-2004 without expecting any separate notice for their appearance before it. 11. No costs.