JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal in suit for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of defendants and for permanent . injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was filed with the allegations that the land in dispute, in respect of which sale deed dated 7-8-1969 was executed by Jainarain, was abadi of the plaintiffs and they were in possession over the same and Jainarain has no right or title over the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the plaint allegations and alleging that Jainarain has full right and title over the land in dispute and sale deed has correctly been executed in favour of .the defendants. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit, hence present second appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Radhay Shyam, learned counsel for the appellants urged that in view of the report of Distt. Judge Allahabad dated 13-10-1986 the original record of suit No. 342 of 1969 and in first Appeal No. 94 of 1979 pertaining to present second appeal has been burnt in the fire in the Distt. Court Allahabad consequently record may be reconstructed and then only appeal may be decided on merits. Reliance was placed on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow v. Smt. Geeta Devi, AIR 1983 All 124 and Ram Khelawan v. D.D.C. Allahabad, 1987 All WC 1255 . On merits however, it was urged that as vendor had no right tortile over the land in dispute hence sale deed is liable to beset aside. It was further urged that the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of S. 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. Mr. S.N. Singh learned counsel for the respondents urged that in spite of sufficient opportunity given to the plaintiff/appellants, they did not take any initiative for reconstruction of the record even though the defendant/ respondents have done their part of duty for reconstruction of the record consequently there is no justification for granting any further time for reconstruction of the record. Moreover, the scope for interference by the Hon'ble Court in second appeal depends on the substantial question of law involved. On merits it was urged that vendor has got every right and title over the land in dispute consequently the sale deed is legal and valid. Moreover, the scope for interference by the Hon'ble Court in second appeal depends on the substantial question of law involved. On merits it was urged that vendor has got every right and title over the land in dispute consequently the sale deed is legal and valid. It was further urged that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefit of S. 9 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the second appeal is concluded by the findings of fact. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, so far as reconstruction of the record is concerned, it appears that this Court by order dated 13-7-1989 directed the appellant to assist in the reconstruction of the record within a month. Thereafter on 2-8-90 after more than a year again learned counsel for the appellant prayed for and was granted a month's and no more time for taking steps with regard to reconstruction of the record. In spite of stop order, learned counsel for the appellant on 28-11-90 prayed for and was granted six weeks time for reconstruction of the record. However, even then record could not be reconstructed till today, Thus it is obvious that in spite of more than sufficient time having been granted plaintiff has not taken steps for reconstruction of the record on one pretext or the other were as the defendants have always been co-operating and taking steps for reconstruction of the record. Under these circumstances even if reconstruction of record may be very essential but in case plaintiff himself did not take any step there is no option but to decide the case on the basis of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of judgments of the courts below and in accordance with law. 6. As regards the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Lucknow v. Smt. Geeta Devi, AIR 1983 All 124 , Division Bench of this Court directed claims Tribunal to serve parties with the notices requiring them to produce copies of the statements of witnesses if have the same in their possession, within 3 weeks and in case copies were produced before the claims Tribunal, it will satisfy itself whether they are correct copies and in case they fail to do so, the Tribunal may direct the parties to reproduce the witnesses for making statements. In the present case as stated in the paragraph here in before, that more than sufficient time was granted but the appellant did not take steps for reconstruction of the record. Moreever, it is second appeal which may be disposed of on the basis of substantial questions of law involved. 7. In Marakkarutti v. Veerankutty, AIR 1923 Madras 647 (FB) it was observed that one can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every court to reconstruct its own record. 8. In Douglass v. Yallop, (1759) 97 ER 532 where the record was lost in transit from one court to other, it was held that course open to the lower appellate court was to receive such secondary evidence of the contents of the original document or to order entirely new trial. 9. In the present case circumstances are quite different, where decision of this court is to he based on the appraisal of the evidence oral and documentary in that event it becomes necessary to reconstruct the record In second appeal under S. 100 CPC decision is based on substantial question of law involved in the appeal and not on appraisal of evidence on the record. No doubt if some documentary evidence of title has been misread or misinterpreted in that even record may be absolutely necessary. In this case there is nothing like that. This case may be decided on the basis of substantial questions of law involved and perusal of impugned judgments, in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, because in spite of time granted, plaintiff/ appellant did not take steps for reconstruction of the record where as defendant respondent has always been doing his part of duty for reconstruction of the record. 10. It appears from perusal of impugned judgments that both the courts below have appreciated entire evidence on the record and both the questions have been answered against the plaintiff appellant and inference has been drawn that the plaintiff has no right and title over the land in dispute. It is purely a question of fact and has been answered against the plaintiff appellant. Second question has also been answered by both the courts below that plaintiff/ appellant was not entitled to the benefit of S. 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It is purely a question of fact and has been answered against the plaintiff appellant. Second question has also been answered by both the courts below that plaintiff/ appellant was not entitled to the benefit of S. 9 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact and need not be interfered with by this court under S. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. No question of law much less substantial question of law -is involved in this appeal. 11. In view of the premises aforesaid, the appeal having no merits is dismissed with costs.