IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 4417 of 2001 (Old No. 25664/91) Smt. Paro ………………Petitioner Versus The Board of Revenue & others. ……………..Respondents. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate, holding the brief of Sri Vijay Singh Pal, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. None appears for rest of the respondents. 8 th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Present writ petition has been directed against the order dated 25.7.1991 passed by the respondent no. 1/ Board of Revenue (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) in Second Appeal No. 5 of 1985-86 Khimmi Vs. Smt. Paro. 2. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue shows that while deciding the aforesaid second appeal, substantial question(s) of law has/have not been framed as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been adopted by Reference under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is bad. 3. Therefore, Board of Revenue / Additional Commissioner is directed to frame question of law and deal with the question of law only and decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 5. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 8.8.2008 Rathour