IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.) SECONDAPPEAL No. 39 l of20lQ 8 B81 APPELLANT/ 'Defendant ^^Xfc^1 !?r>' •t .f.l;1'1 f^y'^' ^.....r^^I& D^....-^^^ 'Rakesh Dubey S/o Ramji Dubey, aged about 45 years, Caste Brahmin, R/o Govindpur, Tahsil & Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT Plaintiff Ravindra kumar nath S/o ,Sudhjr Kumar Nath, aged about 50 years, caste Jogi, R/o Main Road, Antagarh, Tahsil Antagarh, Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 391 OF 2010 APPELLANT/ jDEFBITOANTi RESPONDENT/ (PLAITIFF) Rakesh Dubey Versus Ravindra Kumar Nath SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OPTHE CODE OF CFVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 (Stnsie Bench: HonWe Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.t Present : Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for fhe appellant ORAL JUDGBtENT (Passed on 04th day ofApril, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. This is defendant's second appeal filed under S«;tion 100 ofthe CPC against thejudgment and decree dated 20- 10-2010 passed by District Judge, Kanker, Dlstrict North Bastar m CM1 Appeal No.Ol-B/2009 dismisstag the appellant's appeal and aSinwng the judgment and decree dated 24-07-2009 passed by Civtl Judge, Class-I, Kanker in CavUSuit No.S-B/2006. 3. Facts of the case in hrief are as iinder: PlalnttEf instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- along wifh interest @ 12% per aanum, a@ednst the appellant/defendanfe 'Accordtl^ to plaintlff, earlier defendant issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- in his favour to clear all the dues against hina but due to expiiy oftime, above cheque could not be en-cashed. The above fact was brought to the notice of defendant, despite that, dues were not cleared. The matter was contested by the defendant inter-alia on the ground the amount, he already paid the same m cash in Smiit oftwo witnesses. ^ 4. Leamed Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, decreed the plaintiff's siiit tnter-alia flnding, defendant failed to discharge his burden to prove above amount is paid to the plaintifT m cash. First Appeal preferred fhere agauist by fhe defendantwas also dismissed. 5. Leamed counsel appeartng for the appellant would submit: both the Courts below wifhout appreciating defendant's evidence held the amount was not repaid which is per-se Ulegal. 6. I have heard fhe leamed counsel for the appellant and perused records of both tfae Courts below. 7. It was for fhe defendant to prove repayment of fhe amoiint of loan. Admittedty, he faUed to produce any receipt regarding alleged repayment in-cash. Leamed both the Courts below after going fhrough the entire evidence have concurrenfly found, defendant failed to discharge hls bnrden to prove repayment. No prudent man vriU repay the loan without getting its receipt particularly in case where earlier he had issued a cheque with regard to payment of loan amoiint. The above findii^s are essentially findings offact. 7. Leamed coiinsel for fhe appellant failed to poiat out any Ulegality, perversity and absurdily in fhe conciirrent findlngs recorded by both fhe Courts below. 8. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal wiUiout there being any substantial question of law involved in fhe appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is fhe sine-qua-non tor the exercise of jixrisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code of CivU I>rocedure. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUant fatled to point out any substantial question of law which may arise -r^ r i SfS» '£y •"vsmas'' .-<tS- °? for determmation in fhe case. In fhe absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of fhis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss fhe appeal at admission stage. 9. In view offhe above, since no substantial question of law arises for determination of the case, (he appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs._ Sd7- N.K. Agarwal Judge