1. Heard Sri Jitendra B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Perused the office report dated 13.11.2014. The Court fee of Rs. 239.50 has been deposited is insufficient. The defect has not been removed so far. Besides, I have also heard the learned counsel for the appellants under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. I do not find that appeal gives rise to any substantial question of law.
2. This is plaintiffs-appellants second appeal under 100 CPC who have lost from both the courts below inasmuch as plaintiff's Original Suit No. 600 of 1997 was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003 and the said judgment has been confirmed in appeal by Lower Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004 vide judgment dated 24.3.2009.
3. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. It is not the case of the appellant that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgments impugned in this second appeal. I, therefore, do not find that any substantial question of law has been arisen in this second appeal warranting consideration by this Court.
4. In view of the above as also, otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.11.2014 SKS