@ ^B^! •s's^^^ IN THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) APPELLANT RCAINTIFF .0' S.A.No.' of 2009 cs^ Ze^^ut- (^> >dv^_ ^LALARAM YADAV, SON OF LATE LAKHAN LAL YADAV, R/o. VILLAGE GATAURI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS : 1) ])EFENDANTS , ^' ^•^^- ^y ..^•" e^&^ a^ (ft^- 7-2-7"rl- MELAURAM @ MILAU RAM YADAV, SON OF LATE BUDHRAM IDAV, R/o. VILLAGE GATAURI, 'TAHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR (C.G.) ••9 STATE OF THROUGH BILASPUR (C.G.) CHHATTISGARH COLLECTOR, MEMOR^NDUM OF ^3ECOND APPPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE QF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMEN3F- AND DECREE DATED 22^.2008 PASSED BY^8TH ADDITIONAL DISCRICT JUDGE, (FTC) BILASPUR (C.G.) IN CIVIL APPEAL N0^2- A/08, WHICH IS ANNEXURE A-l, ARISING QUT OF JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.TT.2007 PASSED BY "•4 CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-II, BILASPUR (C.GJ IN CIVIL SUIT No.39-'X72007 BETWEEN LALARAM YADAV VS^ MELAU RAM AND ANOTHER 'Sz: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second AppealNo. 301 of2009 APPELLANT Plamtiff Lalaram Yadav Versus RESPONDENTS : Melauram @ Milau Ram Yadav & another (-SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF_CIYILJ>RQCEDURE) (Smgle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Anand Kumar Giipta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23.03.2011) 1. Heard oh LA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, I am satisfied that the counsel for appellant is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this appeal, Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission, 3. The instant Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008, passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 32-A/08, whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs/appellant's appeal has been dismissed affirming the ju^gment and decree dated 06.11.2007, passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, in Civil SuitNo. 39-A/07. ^w'"^ te: ;:!'^ a @) 4. Facts in brief, according to plaintiffare : plaintiffinstituted a suit claiming reliefofdeclaration ofhis title over the suit land bearing Khasm No. 1257 Area 0.34 Acre. According to the plaintiff, the suit land is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Pureuant to prior partition, the suit property was allotted to him and accordingly he is in its possession although the same is recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records. The defendant No. 1 denied the above allegations and pleaded the suit property is his self eamed property, is in its possession since 1968, and therefore suit is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The trial court framed as many as five issues. 5. The trial court on appreciation of submissions made, evidence led and material placed on record, dismissed the suit holing : plaintiff failed to prove his ease. 6. There-against the plaintiff preferred First Appeal. The first appellate court after re-appreciating the entire evidence affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. 7. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question oflaw arises for determmation in this appeal. 8. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qtia-non for f/" t':: il.-.. %^\ ^l the exercise ofthejurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for detennination ofthis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 9. In view of above, since no substantial question arises for determination ofthe case, the appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu