Appellants cannot be awarded reliefs not prayed for 

2) there has to prayer for reliefs claimed 

3) HC would consider question of law raised before passing any orders 

4) if question of law is decided in favour of Respondents appeal would be dismissed 

In the hierarchy of court the order of Division Bench passed in Appeal can only be Reviewed by the same Court on limited grounds like error apparent on the face of the record .

For alternation, modification or for setting aside such decision, Supreme Court is the only forum. 

The appeal is heard and the court answers the substantial question of law and decides the second appeal accordingly, ie. Either it allows the appeal or dismisses it. It cannot remand the matter back to the district court.

The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a Second
Appeal is well-known. It is a unique jurisdiction of the High Court
where the High Court can entertain a Regular Second Appeal purely
on a “substantial” question of law not even a question of law or a
question of fact. It is a settled law that the first appellate
court is the final Court insofar as the question of facts are
concerned and it is only when substantial questions of law would
arise in a case that the High Court can entertain a Regular Second
Appeal and if at the stage of admission such substantial questions
of law are discerned by the High Court the same would have to be
framed and the appeal(s) would have to be admitted. It is only
thereafter that the parties have to be heard on the substantial
questions of law that are framed by the High Court at the stage of
admission.

2) However, the CPC gives power to the High Court to frame
additional substantial questions of law or to mould the substantial
questions of law already framed on hearing the parties at the time
of final hearing of a Second Appeal. In the event the respondents
before the High Court are on record even at the stage of admission
of a Regular Second Appeal and the same is to be disposed of
finally even at this stage substantial questions of law must be
framed and answered before the Regular Second Appeal is admitted
and disposed.

3)If no substantial question of law arose in the case then the appeal
could not have been entertained and ought to have been dismissed at
the stage of admission

4) HC  would modify judgment without specific prayer from Appellant 

5) SC IN State Bank of India vs. S.N. Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 9215:has held 
“15. It is a matter of concern that the scope of second appeals and as also the procedural aspects of second appeals
are often ignored by the High Courts. Some of the oft-repeated errors are:
(a) Admitting a second appeal when it does not give rise to a
substantial question of law.
(b) Admitting second appeals without formulating substantial
question of law.
8
(c) Admitting second appeals by formulating a standard or
mechanical question such as “whether on the facts and circumstances the judgment of the first appellate court calls for interference” as the substantial question of law.
(d) Failing to consider and formulate relevant and appropriate substantial question(s) of law involved in the second appeal.
(e) Rejecting second appeals on the ground that the case does
not involve any substantial question of law, when the case in
fact involves substantial questions of law.
(f) Reformulating the substantial question of law after the
conclusion of the hearing, while preparing the judgment,
thereby denying an opportunity to the parties to make  submissions on the reformulated substantial question of law.
(g) Deciding second appeals by reappreciating evidence and
interfering with findings of fact, ignoring the questions of
law.
These lapses or technical errors lead to injustice and also
give rise to avoidable further appeals to this Court and remands by this Court, thereby prolonging the period of litigation. Care should be taken to ensure that the cases not involving substantial questions of law are not entertained, and at the same time ensure that cases involving substantial
questions of law are not rejected as not involving substantial questions of law.”

Kindly see S.100(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.

therefore the high court may do it. It has to record reasons obviously.

An appeal means that the high court will and can set aside the judgment of the district court.

If the appeal is allowed then the judgment of the district court is set aside.

That is not over stepping. 

But all this is hypothetical and therefore you have to share a judgment.

If the  substantial question of law is answered in favour of respondent, there is no question of any modification of order passed by lower appellate Court. The  power of High Court is exercised under statutory provision of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. High Court is not exercising inherent jurisdiction under Article 226. Jurisdiction exercised under provision of law is limited by rights of parties involved. High Court cannot be generous to one party at the  cost of another. Liberal interpretation cannot be given to statutory provision like Constitutional provisions.

Show order for precise advice. 

Dear Client,

The High Court can entertain a second appeal if it involves a "substantial question of law."

The substantial question of law has to be explicitly stated in the memorandum of appeal. The appeal will only be heard on the basis of these substantial questions of law. The High Court must frame the substantial question of law at the time of admission of the appeal. Both appellants and respondents are given an opportunity to be heard on these questions. If the High Court answers the substantial question of law in favour of the respondent, it typically dismisses the appeal. If the High Court finds the question in favour of the appellant, it may set aside the lower court’s decision and may remand the case back for further proceedings or directly pass the final order. The High Court, under its appellate jurisdiction, can modify the judgment of the lower courts. However, it must stay within the boundaries of the questions of law framed and heard. The High Court is not expected to go beyond the formulated questions of law and make decisions on matters that were not part of the original appeal. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC deals with the review of judgments, but it's generally not used to modify an appellate decree unless there is a clerical or arithmetical mistake or there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party seeking the review. The High Court does have the authority to modify or vary an appellate court’s judgment, but this authority is restricted to the substantial questions of law that were framed and heard. Any modification beyond the framed questions of law or without a specific prayer from the appellant could be considered as exceeding the High Court’s jurisdiction. Should you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The Kerala High Court recently stated that the High Court shall admit and hear a second appeal under Order XLII Rule 1,2 read with Section 100 CPC only on 'substantial question of law' and not on equitable grounds.Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the term 'substantial' means having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It stated that 'substantial question.

The Kerala High Court held that under Section 100 with Order 42 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) a second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds and that the formulation of substantial question of law is mandatory. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the order that decreed favouring the plaintiffs, who sought recovery of a property based on their lineage. The Court noted that while the term substantial question of law lacks a specific definition, it signifies a matter of real significance, distinct from technical or inconsequential issues. Notably, the Court emphasized that the legislature intentionally omitted the phrase "of general importance" in this context

In the case in Poyil Salim v Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam (2024:KER:4912

In addressing the admission and maintenance of a Second Appeal, the Court emphasized the necessity of formulating substantial questions of law, as mandated by Order XLII Rule 2 in conjunction with Section 100 of the CPC. However, in this case, the Appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law warranting the admission of the Second Appeal. The Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for entertaining a second appeal.


Section 100 of the CPC reads as under:
“100. Second appeal.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involve a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex-parte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.”

Rules 1 to 3 of Order XLII of the CPC provide for procedure for deciding a second appeal 

An appeal is judicial examination by a higher court of a decision of a subordinate court to rectify any possible error(s) in the order under appeal. The law provides the remedy of an appeal because of the recognition that those manning the judicial tiers too commit errors.

In Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat1
, it was held thus:
“5.……In the well known work of Story on Constitution (of United States), Vol. 2, Article 1761, it is stated that the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the Legislature may choose to prescribe. According to Article 1762 the most usual modes of exercising appellate jurisdiction, at least those which are most known in the United States, are by a
writ of error, or by an appeal, or by some process of removal of a suit from an inferior tribunal. An appeal is a process of civil law origin and removes a cause, entirely subjecting the fact as well as the law, to a review and a retrial.

 Order XLII of the CPC provides for the procedure to be followed while deciding appeals from the appellate decrees. It states that the Rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to the appeals from appellate decrees.
Words such as “so far as may be” or “insofar as” mean ‘as much’ or ‘to the extent’ or ‘to such extent’. By virtue of Order XLII Rule 1, the provisions of Order XLI are applicable to second appeal as well, though not in their entirety, but to certain extent.

If, however, the High Court is satisfied after hearing the appellant at the time of admission that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, then such appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine without any notice to the respondents after recording a finding in the dismissal order that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of sub-section . It is needless to say that for passing such order in limine, the High Court is required to assign the reasons in support of its conclusion.”