AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Badharudeen, J
This Review Petition has been filed aggrieved by the question of law framed by this court limiting the same to “whether the rate of interest fixed is legal and proper?” According to the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/appellant, once the appeal is admitted by finding question/questions of law, all questions of law must be considered.
In this matter, my predecessor admitted the appeal raising question of law as hearinabove referred as per order dated 12.04.2023. A closing reading of Order 42 Rule 2, it has been provided that the court shall formulate the substantial question of law as required by Section 100, and in doing so, the court may direct that the second appeal be heard on the question so formulated and it shall not be open to the appellant to urge any other ground in the appeal without the leave of the court, given in accordance with the provision of Section 100. Since this court admitted the appeal finding that only one question of law to be decided, I am not inclined to allow this Review Petition. Accordingly, this Review Petition stands dismissed.
It is made clear that, during hearing of the matter to address the question of law already raised, if any other question of law arises, the appellant can seek leave of this court and leave to raise any such question shall be the prerogative of this court.