JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 48,700/- (Rs. 30,000/- original + interest Rs. 17,800/- and notice expenses of Rs. 900/-). On 27.10.1999 an ex-parte order was passed against the defendant. The plaintiff led its evidence. The trial Court, however, was not satisfied with the case of plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, which was allowed by the Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 7.3.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant/ appellant submits that after passing an ex-parte order against the defendant the evidence of plaintiff was recorded and the suit was decided immediately, therefore, he could not get an opportunity for filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, therefore, the case be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended that the trial Court committed an illegality in dismissing the suit and the same has rightly been decreed by the Appellate Court. He submits that the second appeal can be admitted only on the substantial questions of law, which is not involved in the present case, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties in the light of findings recorded by the First Appellate Court and after considering the same, I find that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court relates to the question of facts and no substantial questions of law are involved in this second appeal. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramaswamy Kalingaryar v. Mathayan Padayachi, AIR 1992 SC 115 , while considering the scope of Section 100 C.P.C., held as under:- "......... Suggested shortcomings in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below would not alter the situation that those were findings of facts, unquestionable, under the provisions of Section 100, C.P.C., which defines the contours of the power of the High Court in second appeal...." 7. In Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10 SCC 553 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. In Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10 SCC 553 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it is well settled that even if the first appellate Court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. 8. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Second appeal dismissed. *******