R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that respondent No. 2 to 5 were allotted different plots by the petitioner- society as they wanted to raise certain constructions or build houses. According to the petitioner-Society, as the respondents No. 2 to 5 were not raising constructions in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, repeated notices were issued to them and ultimately their allotments were cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said cancellation, each of the respondent (No. 2 to 5) filed a dispute under Section 64 of MR Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar. It appears that immediately after cancellation of the allotment, one plot each was allotted to respondent No. 7 to 9. The present petitioner and the fresh allottees were made parties in the disputes, who after notice filed their replies. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Deputy Registrar held that the cancellation of the allotment was illegal and could not be sustained. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Co-operative society filed four appeals and each of the allottee also filed separate appeals. All the eight appeals were heard in a group hearing. The learned Joint registrar set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and held that the society was justified in canceling the allotments or making fresh allotments. The matter was then taken to the Board of Revenue. The Board of revenue, by its judgment date 11. 9. 1998, reversed the judgment passed by the Joint Registrar restored that of the Deputy Registrar and held that cancellation of the allotment was illegal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Society has filed this petition. ( 2 ) SUBMISSION of Shri Sapre, learned Counsel for petitioner-Society is that the Board of Revenue was not justified in up setting the findings rather well reasoned findings recorded by the joint Registrar and erred in stepping outside the jurisdiction conferred upon it under sub-section (2) of Section 77 of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. His further submission is that the order dated 11. 9. 1998 does not show application of mind and clearly proceeds on certain presumptions which were not available to the said authority. I have heard Shri Sapre at length. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 77 refers to a second appeal. His further submission is that the order dated 11. 9. 1998 does not show application of mind and clearly proceeds on certain presumptions which were not available to the said authority. I have heard Shri Sapre at length. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 77 refers to a second appeal. According to sub-section (2), a second appeal shall lie against any order passed in first appeal on the grounds well described under sub-section (2) of Section 77 and no other. The grounds on which a second appeal can be filed have been categorised as : (I) that the order is contrary to law; (II) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law; or (III) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Act which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to Shri Sapre, none of the grounds were available to the second appellate Court, therefore, the said Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court. ( 5 ) IN the opinion of this Court, the argument of Shri Sapre loses sight of particular facts which are floating on the surface of the record. Undisputedly a particular size of plots were allotted to the respondents. According to the amended lay out, the road which was reduced from 60 feet to 40 feet and plot holders of either side were given 10 feet more of land. The Board of Revenue has taken into consideration this aspect. According to it. if additional 10 feet land was given to the allottees, then their maps, sanctions and lay outs would all change. This fact was not taken into consideration by the 1st appellate court. This was infact a material issue of law which was required to be considered as a party was certainly entitled to rely upon a subsequent event. ( 6 ) THE records would also show that because of some dispute filed by third party, the society had issued a restraint order against three of the respondents asking them not to proceed with the construction. The Society has not filed even a single document or a letter or something worth it to show that the said restraint order was ever withdrawn or recalled by the Society. The Society has not filed even a single document or a letter or something worth it to show that the said restraint order was ever withdrawn or recalled by the Society. If such restraint orders were issued and were not withdrawn by the Society, a member would certainly be entitled to believe that so long as the order is not withdrawn by the authority/society, he has not to proceed with the construction. Though the present appears to be a question of fact, but it had its own legal effects. The facts are that the respondents did not raise any construction but they had a legal authority for not making the construction and this question of law was again not discussed by the 1st appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. It is also to be seen that there were yet other disputes between the parties and if such disputes were pending. It is not expected from a plot holder / allottee to spend his hard earned money on construction of a building on a plot which is under dispute. When a man raises a construction, infact he spends his life-time savings. It would be absurd to expect from a man to proceed with the construction despite a restraint order and knowing well that the disputes were not settled up to a particular date. The IInd appellate Court certainly had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the second appeal. Even if the findings recorded by it are not in accordance with evidence then too, finding recorded by it is not required to be corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In any case, present appears to be a case where substantial justice has been done between the parties. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. .