JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Umang Srivastava for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 12.7.2016 by which the case was adjourned on the application of the petitioners for hearing on 8.8.2016 and till then the parties were directed to maintain status quo on the spot. The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Raghvendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt passed in Civil Appeal No.390 of 2016, decided on 30.3.2016, submits that so long as second appellate court is not framing substantial question of law, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and pass an interim order. Therefore, passing of interim order by Board of Revenue without framing substantial question of law is illegal. He has relied upon Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 and stated that second appeal is maintainable on the grounds given under Section 100, CPC. By virtue of sub-section (30) of Section 3 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been applied to the proceeding under U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 by way of reference then any amendment in the provision will automatically apply. He submits that since Section 100, CPC was amended in the year 1977 by which Section 100(4) has been incorporated, which requires framing of substantial question of law as mandatory for second appellate court for hearing the appeal. Therefore, it was imperative for Board of Revenue to frame substantial question of law first and then it can pass interim order. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners in this respect. Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand (Prev.U.P.) vs Mohan Singh & Ors (2012) 13 SCC 281 has held that provision of Section 100(4), CPC is not applicable to the second appeal filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that judgment of Supreme Court in Mohan Singh (supra) is per incuriam and is not liable to be accepted as under Section 331 (4) it is only provided that second appeal shall be filed on the ground provided under Section 100, CPC. Thus this is a substantial provision, which has been applied by way of reference under section 331(4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. Thus this is a substantial provision, which has been applied by way of reference under section 331(4) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. So far as the procedure for hearing a second appeal as provided under Section 100 (4), CPC is concerned, the procedure has not been applied under Section 331(4). Amendment in procedural part of Section 100, CPC will not apply automatically in view of Section 3(30) of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. In such circumstances no illegality has been committed by Board of Revenue, U.P. in granting interim order, when the petitioners sought adjournment. Since Board of Revenue has fixed 8.8.2016 for final hearing the petitioners may raise objection that appeal is required to be heard for admission instead of final hearing before that court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.