ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed by the High Court on coming to the conclusion that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The challenge in the suit was to the legality of the order dated 1-4-1986, whereby on account of the shortage of stock, according to the appellant, a sum of rupees three hundred per month was directed to be deducted from the salary of the respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial court but decreed in the first appeal. One of the substantial questions of law before the courts was about limitation. We may only point out that, according to the trial court, the recovery from the salary of the respondent started from 1-4-1986 and the suit for declaration filed on 5-3-1992, was barred by limitation since the cause of action arose on 1-4-1986. Since we propose to remand the second appeal to the High Court, we express no opinion one way or the other on the question of limitation or other questions, which may arise in the second appeal, except observing that the second appeal ought to have been admitted after formulating the requisite substantial question of law. It cannot be said, on the aforesaid facts, that no question of law much less substantial question of law was involved. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit RSA No. 2868 of 2000 for fresh decision of the High Court after formulating the requisite question of law. The High Court is requested to expeditiously dispose of the second appeal. S. The civil appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. No costs.