(f ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SECOND APPEALNo. 1^^ OF 2004 \- APPELLANT PLAINTIFF Mst. Maqbul Bai, aged about 50 years, W/o Inayat Khan, resident of Salhevarpara, Tehsil & Dist. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDEMTS DEFENDANTS 1. Gopal, aged about 47 years, S/o Govardhan / ./J'' ^ ^:.^- ^:K 9:^X - ^~- y/ /C7 //\ / //^'^ //^ ^ .^" ..•*• /• 4. / Shyamlal, aged about 43 years, S/o Govardhan Mst. Bhago Bai, aged about 63 years, widow ofGovardhan' Laxminath, aged about 38 years, S/o Pachkaud Marar <?-' ^/'? 5. Suresh Kumar, aged about 28 / years, S/o Govardhan Marar All residents of Salhevarpara, Tehsjl & District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE \.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0.146 OF 2004 APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Mst. Maqbul Bai Versus Gopal andothers. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIViL PROCEDURE CODE (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri H.S. Patel, counsel for the appellant. ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on 27th day of January, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04-08-2003 passed by AddJtional District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No.06-A/2002 whereby the appellant's/plaintiffs appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 16-12-1998 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-1, Dhamtari in Civil Suit N<3fe97-A/1986 has been affirmed. 3. The facts according to appeliant/plajntiff are as under: The plaintiff preferred a suit for specific performance of contract of sale against the defendants on the basis of agreement to sa!e dated 22-04-1978 for the land bearing Khasra No.1180/1, area 105 X 65 feet situated at Dhamtari. The plaint averments were denied by the defendants. Learned Trial Court framed severai issues. The parties led evidence. Learned triat Court based on the evidence adduced in the case, recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove execution of any valid agreement of saie regarding suit land and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal. The iearned appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dtemissed the appeal, hence this Second Appeal. 4. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any perversity, itlegality or absurdity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The finding whether or not parties entered into in any valid agreement of sale is essentially a finding of fact. Learned both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove such agreement. 5. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appea! w'rthout there being any substantial question of iaw involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine- qua-non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel 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 determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal at admission stage. 6. In view of the above, since no substantial questjon of law arises for determinatjon of the case, the appeal is dismissed at admissjon stage. No order asto costs. r- Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Kvr