HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS AT; BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Second Appeal No.282 of 2W7 Appenant Ramphai Sio Ronha, aged about 55 years, by caste Gond, Occupatian— Cuitivation, R/o Viliage Burbaspur, P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. Suhani, D/o Dirpal. aged about 65 years, by caste Gond, Rlo Vinage Barbaspur, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsii Pratappur, District. Surguja (C.G.) Respondents i 2. MP. State through Coiiector, Surguja now State of Chhattisgarh threugh Collector, Surguja (C.G.) Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,’i 908 Present : Shri Sunii Tripalhi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2’ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13*“ December, 200?) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree 10-05-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Pratappur, District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.10-Af2007 whereby the suit for declaration of title of the appellant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18-11-2004 passed in Civil Suit No.82-Ai2003 by Civil Judge, Class-Ii. Pratappur was afflrmed. 3. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that the trial Court erred in closing the opportunity of the appellant/plaintiff for adducing evidence on 11-03-2003. Learned counsel for the appeliant did not dispute that he had preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of india which was dismissed on the ground that as many as 11 opportunities were granted to the appeliant for adducing evidence and thereafter on 10-01-2003, a iast opportunity was granted. When the appeilant piaintiff failed to adduce evidence, the right of the plaintiff to adduce evidence was closed. 4. ln this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is dismissed at the stage of admission. / ‘ 'sdi- Dilip Raos KVF ‘ aheb Deshmukh ‘ Judge