/o IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEALNO fl^ OF 2010 A^PELLANT: ^[DEFENDANT] ^-/ ^ys ^-^llt ^r'1' 8te|l8<ineff Snehlata Pandey, Wd./o Late Kamalkant Pandey, Aged about 45 years, Occupation-Assistant Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT: ^PLAINTIFF] Jiarimitra Amarnath, Dheer, S/o Late Lal aged about 71 years, R/o Block N0.219-A, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tehsil 85 District-Durg (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 r/w 0.4^0F THE CODE^ OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 19Q8jyalued (% RsT^4000/- Court fees Paid Rs.5080/w' r6^ 3J HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0.127 OF 2010 A APPELLAi^T/ DEFENDANT RESPONDENT/ PLASTSFF Snehlata Pandey .Versus Harimitra Dheer SECONDAPPEALUNDERSEGTION100R/W0.420FTHE CODE OF C!V!L PROCEDURE. 1908 (SlnaSe Bench: Hon'bSe Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. 4,1 Present : Shri Adil Minhaj, counsel for the appeliant. (Passec! on 01st day of April, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. This js defendant's second appeai filecj under Section 100 ofthe CPC agajnstthejudgmentanddecreeidated 29-01-2010 passed by District Judge, Durg in Civjl Appeal No.05-B/2009 dismissing the appeliant's appeal ahd affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-01-2009 passed by the Triai Court in Civil Suit N0.4-B/2006. 3. Factsofthe case in briefare as under: Piaintiffinstituteda suit for recovery of Rs.44,000/- against the present appeliant. According to ptaintiff, appetlant's husband Kamalkant Randey took loan of Rs.40,000/- on 08-07-2004 and executed an agreement In this regard. The ciaim was denied by the appellant by filing her writtenstatement. Leamed TriaE Court on apprecjation oftheevidenceled, materiai piaced, decreed the piaintiffs suit hoiding appeliant iiable to the extent she Inherited the property of her deceased husband. First AppeaJ preferred there against was aiso dismjssed. The oniyquestion raised by leamed counsel appearing for the appeiiant is that triaj Court as weii as the First Appellate ^. ^ •^. v^. ^' Court has erred in not dedding the question whether or not she had inherited any property of her deceased husband. 4. i have heard the iearned counse! for the appeiiant, perused the impugned judgment and decree and records ofboth the Courts below. 5. Learned Triai Court has rightly confined appeilant's liabiiity for payment of the amount of the decree to the extent, she jnherited the property of deceased husband. Whether or not appellant has inherited any prpperty of her deceased husband, making her liabie for payment ofdecretal amount is a questlon to be decided by the Executing Court. . 6. in view of the above, i do not find any jilegailty, perverslty and absurdity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts beiow. Therefore, no substantiai question of law arises for determination ofthis Court In the instant appeai. 7. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeaf without there being any substantla! question of law invoived in the appeai. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine- qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civll Procedure. Learned counse! for the appeilant faiied to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination jn the case. in the absence of any substantiai question of iaw arises for determination ofthis Court, this Court has no optlon but to dlsmiss the appeai at admission stage. , 8. In view of the above, since no substantiaJ question of !aw arises for determination of the case, the appea! is dismi'ssed at admission stage. No order asto costs. ,—^,-,—; N.K. Agrawal Judge Kvr