w C7?§ggkx IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0.é 7 / /2003 §1Lmg V anesh Ram age 19 years son 0f Late Raghu Rawat, resident of Village Bundeli, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS s %$h APPELLANT c“PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Smt Setamati aged 80 years, widow of late Raghu Rawat, resident of Village Bundeli, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C‘G.) Laxmin Bai, aged about 58 years, Widow of Late Raghu Rawat, resident of Bundeli Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Madanmohan, aged about 31 years, son of Chakradhar Aghariya, resident of Village Bundeli, Tah Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Smt. Bimla, aged about 41 years, wife of Shri Nohar Singh, resident of village Bundeli, Post Malda, Tah. Sarangarh, Distt. Kw‘gewA State of Chhattisgarh, through : District Collector, Raigarh (CG) (PROFORMA PARTY) on SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. “* G HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASBUR SECOND APPEAL No. 476/2003 APPELLANT Ganesh Ram Versus RESPONDENTS Laxmin Bai and others SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :— Shri Kamal Pandey, Advocate, for the appellant. ORAL ORD ER (25—3-2011) 1. This is plaintiff’s second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 4—7—2003 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 37—A/2002 whereby and whereunder plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of his title and possession of the suit land. Defendant No; 2 admitted plaint averment. The defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 denied the plaintiff’s claim. Trial Court on appreciation ofevidence led, material placed and submissions made, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit as well as the counter claim preferred by the defendant No. 2 inter alia finding: plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are having half-half share in the suit property pursuant to the order passed by the revenue court, the defendant No. 1 rightly executed sale deed dated 19—6— i i f; 1990 and the plaintiff has no right of maintenance against the.defendant No. l. 4. The first appellate court after re-appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record, affirmed the - above finding and dismissed the appeal Vide impugned judgment and decree. Shri Kamal Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant could not point any illegality, absurdity or perversity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below and in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial r question of law arises for determination in this appeal. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the ppeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua—non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law »which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of an substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8d!— N. K. Agatwal Judge a y