JUDGMENT 1. The civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,300/-, allegedly due in the defendant as filed by the plaintiff-appellant (CO No. 7/1993) came to be dismissed by the learned Munsif, Ghatol, Banswara by the judgment and decree dated 05.01.1994 essentially on the consideration that the person filing the suit was not duly authorised by the Bank to do so and also on the finding that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. In relation to the question of limitation, the learned Trial Court observed and found as under:- " 7 & fook/kd la[;k lkr & bl fook/kd dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknh ij FkkA oknh dh vksj ls vius okni= esa ;g ckr dgh x;h gS] fd fnukad 14-10-82 dks izfroknh us ,duksyst vkWQ MsV izi= fu"ikfnr fd;k FkkA vr% okn fe;kn ds Hkhrj izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu izfroknh dh vksj ls vius tokc esa bl ckr dk fojks/k fd;k x;k gSA oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg ih0Mh0&1 v'kksd dqekj ds le{k izn'kZ&9 ,duksyst vkWQ MsV izi= dks fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftl vf/kdkjh ds lkeus ,duksystesUV vkWQ MsV izi= dks fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS] mls U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ih0Mh0&2 Jh dsljflag ds eq[; ijh{k.k es ;g ckr ugha vk;h gS fd izn'kZ&9 ,duksyst vkWQ MsV izi= ij izfroknh ds gLrk{kj mlds lkeus gq, FksA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh ds iwNus ij izfrijh{k.k esa ;g xokg vo'; dgrk gS fd izfroknh us izn'kZ&9 ,dukWyst vkWQ MsV izi= ij gLrk{kj mlds lkeus fd;s FksA ysfdu izn'kZ&9 ,dukWyst vkWQ MsV izi= ij dgha Hkh bl xokg ds gLrk{kj ugha gSa] vkSj u gh bl ij fy[kk gqvk gS fd Jh dsljflag ds le{k izfroknh ds gLrk{kj izn'kZ&9 ij fdjk;s x;s FksA ftl vf/kdkjh us izn'kZ&9 ,dukWystesUV vkWQ MsV izi= ds dkWye dks Hkjk gS vkSj vius lkeus izfroknh ds gLrk{kj djk;s gS] mls U;k;ky; ds le{k lk{; gsrq is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj esjh jk; esa oknh izn'kZ&9 ,dukWyst vkWQ MsV izi= dks fof/k ds vuqlkj izekf.kr ugha dj ldsa gSaA tc ,dukWystesUV vkWQ MsV izi= izekf.kr ugha gS] ml ifjfLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd oknh dk okn vanj fe;kn izLrqr gSA vr% bl fook/kd dk fu.kZ; oknh ds fo#) ,oa izfroknh ds gd esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA " 3. The findings so recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and it was held that the suit was filed beyond limitation and the plea of acknowledgement as raised by the plaintiff remained hollow and was not substantiated for want of proof by relevant documentary evidence. The learned Appellate Court also endorsed the findings of the learned Trial Court that the person filing the suit was not authorised to do so. 4. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted for consideration on 22.07.1996 while formulating the following as the substantial question of law:- "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below was right in holding that the power of attorney issued in favour of Rajendra Prasad by one Madhu Bhai Patel is not admissible in evidence unless the authority of Madhu Bhai Patel of issuing such power of attorney is proved?" 5. On the matter being taken up for hearing, nobody has appeared for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Courts below had been in error in observing that the person filing the suit was not having an authority to do so on the consideration that the authority of the person extending further authority was not proved. The learned counsel submitted that once the authority extended on behalf of the Bank was proved and established on record, there was no reason to dismiss the suit on this count. 6. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, do not even require consideration for the simple reason that the suit has been dismissed not only on the ground of want of authority but also on the ground of limitation. 7. In relation to the issue of limitation, there are available on record concurrent findings of the learned subordinate Courts against the plaintiff wherein it has been found that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate its case of acknowledgement of debt by the defendant; and after rejecting such case of acknowledgement, the learned subordinate Courts have found the suit beyond limitation. Significantly, no substantial question of law in this regard was even formulated at the time of admission of this appeal. No substantial question of law in this regard appear involved in this case. Significantly, no substantial question of law in this regard was even formulated at the time of admission of this appeal. No substantial question of law in this regard appear involved in this case. The suit having been filed beyond limitation, the same could only have been, and has rightly been, dismissed. 8. In the aforesaid position of record where the finding remains final that the suit has been filed beyond limitation, the question as formulated cannot be said to be the substantial question of law involved in this case because, as noticed, even if this question is answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, the suit is, nevertheless, required to be dismissed. 9. As a result of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The respondent having not appeared, there shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******