a9 BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.j SECOND APPEAL N0ML slnSfe Beneb /2006 APPELLANT 7 ^ ^ESPONDENTS M ^^ 7^ ^y v ../-A^> ^/7 ^-y ^Bm.t. Maan Bai, Dewangan, wife of Shri Sant Rain Dewangaa, aged about 48 years, resicient of village Arjuni Tikari, Tah. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Krishna Dewangaxi, son of Shri Tula Dewangan, aged about 50 years, resideiit of village Arjuni TilceTi, Teii. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ Graai Panchayat Arjuni Tikari, through - present Sarpaiich, Arjuni Tikari, Tah. Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.). / /-t.OT ^3^/State of Madhya Pradesh (At €^\^^^ /- c// 6^^> present State of Chhattisgarh), ^ ^\^ <V2' ^>N through - Collector, Dist. Durg y (Chhattisgarh). 5 2I-.^ Talisildar, Talisil Gunderdehi, Y Distt. Durg (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRQCEDURE, 1908. y^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECPW?APPEALN0.1610P2 APPELLANT Smt. Maan Bai Dewangan Versus RESPONDBNTS Krishna Dewangan and others. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OFTHE CH/IL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 fSinfide Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Affarwal, J.t Present : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar & Shi-i Vijay Kumar Sahu, coiinsel for the appellant. \ Shri Vishnu Koshta^ counsel for resp^ndent No.l. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 04th day ofMay, 2011) Heard on adniission. 2. " This is defendants' second appeal against tfae judgment and decree dated 24-02-2006 passed by 12th Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Durg in Civil Appeal No.21-A/2005 whereby and whereunder the appeUant's appeal has been disinissed and fhe judgment and decree dated 24-11-2000 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg in Civil Suit No.2-A/2000 has been affirmed. 3. Brief facts of fhe case are as under: The plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injiinction against fhe present appellant. According to plaintiff, plaintiff is owner of land bearing s.\ KhasraNos.396/1, 396/2 and 395/2, total area 4.34 acres of agriciiltural land situated in the Village Aijuai Tikari, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg. After dividing land bearing Khasra No.345/5 and 394/5 into 45 plots (each of 2.5 decimal), one plot was allotted to defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 encroached upon the land marked as red in Schedule-A, over and above land allotted to hun, creattng obstruction in plainti£FsNistar. 4. Leamed trial Court inter-alia findtng: defendant No. 1 has encroached upon the suit land directed respondents/defendants No. 3 and 4 for removal of Ulegal construction over ^uit land within a period of fhirty days at the cost of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 preferred first appeal. Vide uiipugned judgnient and decree^ fhe leamed first appeUate court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed fhe appeal. 5. Leamed counsel for the appeUant could not point out any perversity, illegalit5'r or absurdity in ttie concurrent findtngs recorded by both the Courts below. 6. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law tnvolved in fhe appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is ftie sine-qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction uuder the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil ."6%^. %. i W:S:S% "'•^te^;^; Ri'ocedure. Leanied counsel for the appeUant failed to point out any substantial question of law which m.ay arise for determtnation ta the case. In fhe absence of aay substantial question of law arises for determmation of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss fhe appeal at admission stage. 7. In view ofthe above, since no substantial question of law arises for detemimation of the case, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Kvr