ORDER 1. HEARD THE PARTIES. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. IN THIS CASE, THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT DATED 16-1-2004 IN RSA NO. 210 OF 2004 WHEREBY THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE SECOND APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED. 4. MS MADHUSMITA BORA, LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT, HAS TAKEN US TO MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT. SHE CONTENDED THAT THE HIGH COURTS OBSERVATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THERE WAS CONCURRENT FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TWO COURTS ON THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP POSSESSION IS NOT CORRECT. SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND THE HIGH COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 5. REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ENUMERATED IN PARA 12(C) OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. PARA 12(C) READS: "12(C) WHETHER MARK D-L, FAMILY SETTLEMENT (ONLY A PHOTOCOPY) CAN BE TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE WHEN IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PUT TO THE PLAINTIFF WHEN HE APPEARED AS PW 1?" IN OUR VIEW THE AFORESAID IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW DESERVED TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER THE ABOVESAID SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT AND APPROPRIATE. 7. STATUS QUO ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 6-7-2004 SHALL CONTINUE TILL THE SECOND APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF BY THE HIGH COURT. 8. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. NO COSTS.