IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 521 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.12.2010. Chaman Lal Makkar …Petitioner. Versus Kundan …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 NO. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sunny Dadwalia vice Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the judgement and decree dated 9.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, camp at Karsog, District Mandi, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and upheld the judgement and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The valuation of the suit is only Rs.25,000/- and therefore, no second appeal is maintainable under Section 102 of the CPC. Under Section 100 of the CPC, a second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. Section 102 CPC specifically provides that no second appeal is maintainable in a suit, value whereof is less than Rs.25,000/-. The provisions of Sections 100 and 102 CPC cannot be circumvented by 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An appeal is the creation of a statute and the legislature in its wisdom has decided that a second appeal will not lie in a suit valuation of which is less than 25,000/-. There is no occasion to entertain a CMPMO unless it is shown that there is some illegality involved or there is some perversity in the finding of the learned Trial Court. In the present case, I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. I find that both the judgments are based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore do not call for any interference in this petition. 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit for a specific performance of a contract and in the alternative for recovery of Rs.25,000/-. The suit was dismissed holding that the agreement Ext.PW-1/A relied upon by the petitioner is not a genuine document. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the finding of the learned trial Court upheld. No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved. Both the Courts below have disposed of the proceedings only on finding of facts. Therefore, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 15th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge