HIGH COURT^>F^HHAmS<3ARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Appellant Defendant No.1 Ptaintiff Respondent No.1 Defendant No.2 Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. S.A.No. 414 of 2007 Lakhanlal, S/o Late Adhin Das Mathur, aged about 47 years, R/o Marukapa, Occupation-Cultivation, Tehsil-Lormi, Distt. Bitaspur (CG) Versus 1. Vijay Kumar, S/o Late Adhin Das, aged about 39 years, R/o Marukapa, P.0. Lalpur, Tehsit-Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2. State of ChhatGsgarh Through the Coltector, Distt. Bilaspur Second appeal underSection 100 ofCPC. 1908. Present: Shri Vimalesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellant. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri P.R. Patankar, PL for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25.09.2008) The appeal is finally heard today. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the appellant/defendant was in unauthorized possession of the suit house. The following substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 07.05.2008 for determination of this appeal. 'Whether both the Courts below were justified in not recording any finding about the paternHy of respondent No.1 although this issue was raised by the appellant in both the Courte below?" — (2) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that this appeal does not involve the question of law framed by this Court on 07.05.2008 because appellant/defendant No.1 had specifically admttted in para-2 that the respondent No.1 is the son of Adin Das. /y3^\ ;A •. _ ^--CT'n.^ ^S I ^sa'l 1 ^. ^.^ ^/ .<y '*Sa£s-^'' -2- (3) Leamed counsel for the appetlant has submitted that ttie amendment of para-4(A) in the written statement to the effect that plaintiff Vijay Kumar was not ttie son of Adin Das was allowed by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, trial Court ought to have framed an issue on this point. (4) Having heard the rival submissions, 1 have pemsed the record. The suit was filed by Vijay Kumar, the son of Adin Das. In para-2 of the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, it was specifically admitted by the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff Vijay Kumar is the son of Adin Das. This admission was not withdrawn by the appellant/defendant by deleting the said portion from the written statement. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court was justified in not framing any issue on the said question. It is also seen that non-framing of issue on the said question was not agitated by the appellant/defendant No.1 in first appeal. (5) In view of the above, 1 am of the considered opinion that the question of law framed by this Court on 07.05.2008 is not involved in second appeal. tn this view of the matter, since no question of law is involved, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ^-^rbma ^ Priya