^ / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^ AT: BILASPUR ^^cil^^^^ S.A.No. 3-9 / 2011 Suit was valued RS. 10300.00 C. A. was valued Rs. 10300.00 S.A.valuedRS. 10300.00 Court fee affixed RS.l 100.00 Court fee affixed Rs. 1 100.00 Court fee affixed RS. 1 100.00 / ^ ^/y/^' w/^~ ^- ^? / ^y ^ ^w ^r APPELLANT: Khorbaharin Bai, aged 52 years, daughter of Faguwa Ram, caste Kurmi., resident of village Nawapara, (Ghutku), tahsil Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) (Appellaht/defendant) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 7. Smt. Mongra Bai, aged 50 years, daughter ofltwari, caste Kurmi, 2. Mahetrin Bai, aged 57 years, daughter of Itwari, caste Kunni, Both are residents of village Nawapara (Ghutku), tahsil Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondents/plaintiffs) 3. State of Chhatisgarh through the District Collector, Bilaspur, district Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondent/defendant) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. ^ A ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS S.A. No. 39/2011 Khorbaharin Bai Versus Smt. Mongra Bai and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (10-3-2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. Instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11-5-2010 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2010 whereby appellant's appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Takhatpur in Civil Suit No. 139- A/2006. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 based on demarcation reported dated 27-5-2007 filed an application under Section 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar for eviction of appellant from open land and suit in question for their eviction from suit house, which according to them, was raised by appellant by encroaching plaintiffs' 1.50 decimal ofland. 4. Learned both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence, found appellant encroached upon 1.50 decimal of plaintiffs land and constructed house thereupon, and decreed the suit. 5. Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the evidence of P.W. 1 Mongrabai would V)^ F submit, her evidence does not support the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has encroached upon the suit land and constructed the house thereupon. He would further submit, thePanchnama would show that there is interpolation in the Panchnama and, therefore, decree based on demarcation report is bad. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The Tehsildar has passed eviction order from the suit land based on the same demarcation report Ex. P-2, 3 and 4. The appellant herein did not challenge the above order. The order attained finality. In view of above, it cannot be said that the demarcation report is in any way suspicious. The decree is passed based on appreciation of evidence and demarcation report and the appellant failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. 8. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 9. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 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 ouf any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 10. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ ^l