IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.Gl B@^c^1. APPELLANT DEFENDANT PLAINTIEri SECOND APPEAL N0. 53 OF 2011 : Cheduram, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Dukhiram by cast.e Kewat, Occupation, Labour, r/o Dadarkhud, Police Station Korba, Tehsil 85 District Korba (C.G) VERSUS Rameshwar Prasad, aged about 32 years, S/o Badriprasad, by caste Kumhar, r/o y ;>\ • .^'' vy :-- YAV Dadarkhud, Police Station Korba, Tehsil 85 J\^^^ / ^ ^ ^* ^°^ r^:^4-^:. ^p'^'.-<^ District Korba (C.G) sf^OND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 QF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE m<^H COURT OF CaiHATTISOARH AT BIIASI>im SBCOND APPEAL N0. 53 OF 2011 APPELLANT/ DEFB^PANT RESPONDBNT/ PLAITIFF Chedurain Versus Rameshwar Prasad SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OPTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 (Slnade Bench; Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaiarwal, J,l Present : Shri Ramakant Pandcy, counsel for the appellant. ORALJUDOMBNT (Passed on W^ day of April, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. This is defendant's second appeal ffled under Section 100 of fhe CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14- 12-2010 passed by District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No.Ol-B/2009 dismissing the appellant/defendant's appeal and afiinning the judgment and decree dated 26- 08-2009 passed by Second CivU Judge, Class-I, Korba in CivU Suit No.OS-B/2004. 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.44,327/- against fhe defendant inter-aMa on ttie ground: defendant used to purchase Kirana Goods from his shop on credit. On fhat account, defendant failed to pay the aforesaid sum despite several demands. Parichayat was convened and before Panchayat, he admitted plaintifTs claim and assured for its repayment mid for tlaat purpose, he has executed a receipt Ex.P-2 admittjrig ]^is liability. 4. The defendant contested the claim qn the ground that fhe receipt is forged and fabricated. 5. Leamed Trial Court based on a closed scrutiny of the evidence and material placed held: defendant did not appear in the witness box nor adduced any evidence in support of his defence taken in fhe written statement, plaintiff succeeded in proving his case and decreed fhe suit. 6. First Appeal there against preferred ty fhe appeUant/defendant was also dismissed afilrming fhe above findings. 7. Leam.ed counsel appearing for fhe appellant could not point out any iUegality, peryersity or absiirdity in the concurrent finding recorded by bolh ftie Coiuls below. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for detennination of tliis Court in the instant appgal. 8. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in ttie appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is fhe sine-qua-non for fhe exercise of jurisdiction under fhe amended Section 100 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure. Leamed counsel for tihie appeUant faUed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In fhe absence of any substantial question of law arises for detennmation of fhis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss fhe appeal at admission stage. 9. In view ofthe above,since no substantial question of law arises for determination of fhe case, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge k^