RSA 226/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Md. A. Hai, learned counsel for the appellant. Md. Hai tried to persuade this Court that the deed of agreeme nt which was a vital piece of evidence was filed by the present petitioner/defen dant before the learned trial court but the same was not discussed or considered at the time of disposal of the matter. The court asked the appellant to show th at the deed of agreement was exhibited or proved before the learned trial court. I have gone through the judgments rendered by the lower appellate court as well the trial court but it does not reflect that the aforesaid document was ever pro ved as exhibit. That apart, I do not find any questions which may be termed as substantial quest ions of law as required under Section 100 of the CPC. In view of the above, I do not find any grounds for admitting this secon d appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.