Honble YADAV, J. – Heard. (2). Perused the judgments given by both the courts below. (3). Instant Second Appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (4). The learned counsel for appellant urged before me that both the courts below have not properly. addressed the documentary evidence Ex. A/1 which was exhibited. According to Shri J.L. Purohit once the aforesaid document was exhibi- ted its admissibility cannot be questioned. (5). Looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the anxiety of the defendant-appellant about raising the aforesaid question at two courts below I consider it proper to examine the same. (6). Having inherent limitations in Second Appeal relating to reappraisal of evidence suffice it to observe that Ex. A/1 has no bearing on merits of the case as envisaged under Section 167 of Indian Evidence Act which provides that improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case if it appears to the court before which such objection is raised that independently of evidence objected to and admitted there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision or that if this rejected evidence had been received it ought not to have varied the decision under appeal or revision as the case may be. (7). Here in the present case on hand when the policy was taken on 20.1.84 the deceased Mohan Lal was not suffering from heart disease is sustainable on the basis of other evidence on record. One of them is the certificate given by the Doctor on the pay- roll of the defendant-appellant stating therein that the heart of deceased Mohan Lal was healthy on the date of policy. The learned lower appellate court has given cogent and convincing reasons for disbelieving Ex. A/1 which is alleged to have been prepared by Doctor G.C. Laddha who is also on the pay-roll of defendant- appellant. (8). It is to be noticed that Ex. A/1 is prepared on the letter- pad of Dr. Mishra but Dr. Mishra has not been examined by defendant appellant to explain under what circumstances the letter-pad of Dr. Mishra was used by Dr. Laddha. The learned lower appellate court has rightly arrived at a finding that Ex. (8). It is to be noticed that Ex. A/1 is prepared on the letter- pad of Dr. Mishra but Dr. Mishra has not been examined by defendant appellant to explain under what circumstances the letter-pad of Dr. Mishra was used by Dr. Laddha. The learned lower appellate court has rightly arrived at a finding that Ex. A/1 which is not accompanied with the ECG report cannot be taken into account to prove that on the date of the policy Mohan Lal, deceased was suffering from heart-ailment. (9). Both the courts below have committed no error of law in recording a positive finding that deceased Mohan Lal was not guilty of material concealment. (10). In my considered opinion both the courts below have recorded eminently just and proper concurrent findings of fact which are not assailable in Seco- nd Appeal on the basis of Ex. A/1 inasmuch as there are ample other evidence to sustain the decree under appeal within the meaning of Section 167 of the Evidence Act. (11). Both the courts below have committed no error of procedure in disbelieving Ex. A/1 as argued by the learned counsel for appellant. (12). Consequently, the instant Second Appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.