RSA 122/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAIBAM B.K.SINGH Heard Mr.M.A.Sheikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appears on the side of the respondent without showing any cause . This second appeal has been filed apparently being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.1.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, D hubri in M.A.No.2 of 2006 dismissing the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2006 passed in Money Suit No. 9 of 2006 by the learned Munsif f No.3, Dhubri. Upon hearing the appellant through his counsel at length and on perusal of the materials before the court, I am not satisfied that any substanti al question of law is involved in the present second appeal with reference to th e said judgment dated 22.01.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in M.A.No .2 of 2006. Both the courts, the trial court as well as the first appellate cour t, came to a concurrent finding that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff w as time barred. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the courts below should have taken into consideration the provisions of Se ction 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no relevancy of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Since no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal, this appeal is not admitted and as such, it is he reby dismissed. With this, this second appeal stands disposed of.