In the case of Gurudev Kaur and others -vs- Kaki and others [(2007) 1 SCC 546, the Apex Court held that after the 1976 Amendment, the scope of Section 100 has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down, according to the amended section,
(i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved;
(ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question;
(iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal;
(iv) Another part of the Section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question".
It was also held by the Apex court that
(i) On the day when the second appeal is listed for hearing on admission if the High
Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved, it shall dismiss the
second appeal without even formulating the substantial question of law;
(ii) In cases where the High Court after hearing the appellate is satisfied that the
substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question and then the
appeal shall be heard on those substantial questions of
law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Respondent;
(iii) In no circumstances the High Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court
and the first appellate court without formulating the substantial question of law and
complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure".
in the matter of Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 684 wherein after examination of precedents, it has been held:-
"32. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled
by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on
the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either
way."
