Judgment 1. For the reasons given in the application, delay in filing and refiling of the present appeal is condoned. The plaintiff, Dhan Kaur, is the appellant before this court. She has lost concurrently before the two Courts below. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on September 20, 1998 claiming that she was entitled to the pensionary benefits of her late husband Naik Kahan Singh, being his legally wedded wife. Kahan singh had died on January 28, 1975 and the plaintiff being his legally wedded wife and widow, was entitled to the pensionary benefits. The plaintiff claimed that she had applied for grant of pensionary benefits on February 9, 1987 and on various dates till June 30, 1992. It was claimed that a period of 22 years had passed since the death of Kahan Singh but the plaintiff had not been granted the pensionary benefits. 3. The suit was contested by defendant Nos.1 to 5. They claimed that after his retirement, Kahan Singh was getting his pension as per his entitlement till his death in the year 1975. The aforesaid defendants specifically denied that the plaintiff was his legally wedded wife or entitled to any pensionary benefits. In the 1984, the plaintiff had approached the authorities claiming herself to be the widow of Kahan Singh but she was asked to give proof of marriage. She had not furnished any such proof. Another lady, Karamjit Kaur (present defendant No.6) had also claimed herself to be the widow of Kahan Singh by making a representation on June 20, 1986. She was also required to furnish proof. A claim was also made by santokh Singh, father of Kahan Singh. Santokh Singh claimed that kahan singh before his death was not married and had no children or widow. Consequently, he claimed that being the father, he was entitled to retiral benefits. The matter was investigated. The Zonal Recruiting Officer recommended that Karamjit Kaur was found to be married to Kahan singh on June 20, 1957. It was also held that Dhian Kaur was also married but had later on re-married to Chanan Singh, the real brother of Kahan Singh and therefore, under the rules, had dis-entitled herself to claim any benefits of kahan Singh. Father was also held to be not eligible. 4. A separate written statement was filed by defendant no.6, Karamjit Kaur. It was also held that Dhian Kaur was also married but had later on re-married to Chanan Singh, the real brother of Kahan Singh and therefore, under the rules, had dis-entitled herself to claim any benefits of kahan Singh. Father was also held to be not eligible. 4. A separate written statement was filed by defendant no.6, Karamjit Kaur. She claimed herself to be legally wedded wife of kahan Singh and also pleaded that plaintiff, Dhian Kaur, was infact wife of chanan Singh. A counter claim was also made by Karamjit Kaur claiming that she was entitled to all the pensionary benefits of Kahan Singh. 5. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff was not shown to be married to Kahan Singh. However, the claim of Karamjit kaur was upheld and it was held that she was married to Kahan Singh and was his widow, and as such, entitled to pensionary benefits of Kahan Singh. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff, Dhian Kaur, was dismissed and counter claim of Karamjit Kaur was decreed. An appeal was filed by plaintiff, Dhian Kaur, before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that claim of plaintiff, Dhian kaur, had been rejected on November 24, 1988 vide order Ex. DW-6/6 and the said order had never been challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time. It was held that the plaintiff had not been proved to be the widow of kahan singh. It was further held that even Karamjit Kaur was also not proved to be the widow of Kahan Singh and as such, could not be held to be entitled to any pensionary benefits of Kahan Singh. In these circumstances, the counter claim of Karamjit Kaur was also rejected by the first Appellate Court. The appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the court below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.