1 S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 395/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 395/2008 Suresh Chand & Another Versus Smt. Kampuri Bai & Others. Date of Judgment: 26.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Rajkamal Gaur, for the appellants. Mr. J.P. Goyal, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for per-emption as well as permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute. Said right was denied by the defendants-appellants by filing written statement. Trial court framed eight issues. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Trial court after considering and appreciating the evidence available on record, decreed the suit vide 2 S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 395/2008 judgment and decree dated 10.09.1998. Findings of the trial court were affirmed by the first appellate court while dismissed first appeal of the defendants vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendants. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, defendants moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC alongwith two documents i.e. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 29.06.1944 and another Memorandum of Partition dated 17.01.1956. 4. Plaint was filed on 07.12.1990. Judgment and decree was passed by the trial court in 1998. First appeal of defendants was dismissed by the first appellate court in 2008. Defendants/appellants have not explained the delay of 18 years for not producing said documents on record. 5. In absence of any cogent reason, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot be allowed and in my view the same is liable to be dismissed. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is hereby dismissed. 3 S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 395/2008 6. Controversial issues involved in the present second appeal are relating to finding of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 7. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.31.