ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3299-300 OF 1997 WERE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 23-7-2003 NOTICING THAT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, WHICH IS THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. ON THIS GROUND, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT WAS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS (CIVIL SECOND APPEALS NOS. 29 AND 40 OF 1990) WERE REMANDED FOR FRESH B DECISION BY THE HIGH COURT. 3. THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITIONS WERE FILED WHEREON A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS SINCE ALONG WITH THE REVIEW PETITIONS, THE ORDERS DATED 1-3-1990 AND 28-3-1990 WERE FILED, ONE PASSED IN CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO. 29 AND THE OTHER IN 40 OF 1990. THESE TWO ORDERS SET OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THAT VIEW, IT WAS CONTENDED C THAT THE BASIS OF THE ORDER DATED 23-7-2003 THAT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WAS NOT FRAMED IS NOT CORRECT. THAT SEEMS TO BE SO BUT IN ULTIMATE ANALYSIS IS OF NO ADVANTAGE TO THE REVIEW PETITIONERS FOR THE REASON THAT A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE SAID SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW, WHICH WERE FORMULATED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID TWO ORDERS, WERE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE D IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN THIS VIEW, WE DISMISS THE REVIEW PETITIONS AND MAINTAIN THE ORDER DATED 23-7-2003.