``The amending act was brought on the basis of various law commissions' reports, recommending for making appropriate provisions in the CPC, which were intended to minimise litigation to give the litigant a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principle of natural justice,'' the court observed.

It was also to expedite disposal of civil suits and proceedings so that justice is not delayed, to avoid complicated procedure, to ensure a fair deal to the poor sections of the community and restrict the second appeals on only such questions which are certified by the courts to the substantive question of law, the court said.

Allowing an appeal by Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, a Division Bench comprising Justices S Saghir Ahmad and R P Sethi, said ``It has been noticed time andagain that without insisting for the statement of the substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Courts have been issuing notices and generally deciding the second appeals without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of CPC.''

The judges noted that it has been found in a number of cases that no efforts are made to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law.

The instant appeal, the judges said was one such where provisions of Section 100 CPC had wrongly been applied and the findings of fact by the first appellate court disturbed without adhering to the principles of and the limitations imposed by the section.

The judges noted that the appellate had filed a suit for specific performances against the respondent, Savitribai Sopan Gujar, with regard to an agreement for sale dated May 12, 1972, which was dismissed by the trial court by its order on June 25, 1985.

The lower appellate courtby its order on January 9, 1987, allowed the appeal and granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff after appreciating the evidence, the Court said.

``The findings of the first appellate court cannot be termed to be either perverse or based upon on evidence. Such findings are based upon appreciation of evidence and being the findings of the last court on facts were binding upon the parties,'' the judges pointed out.

A single judge of the High Court, the judges said, was, therefore, not justified to hold that there was no independent proof with regard to the thumb impression of the executer of the document.

``No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, was involved in the second appeal requiring interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.''

The order of the single judge, impugned in this appeal, the judges held, being against the settled norms and contrary to the mandate to Section 100 of the CPC, therefore cannot besustained and set aside the impugned High Court judgment, while restoring the judgment of the first appellate court with costs throughout.