JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare his termination order from the post of L.D.C. dated 05.05.2001 as null and void and without jurisdiction. 3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, decreed the suit of plaintiff, set aside the termination order and declared the same as void. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008 by the First Appellate Court, which is under challenge in this second appeal, preferred on behalf of defendants. 5. Learned counsel for appellants is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the finding of both the Courts below so as to interfere with the same. 6. The questions involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. 7. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram v. Ameerchand, (1981) 2 SCC 414 , considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under: "......The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ramaswamy Kalingaryar v. Mathayan Padayachi, AIR 1992 SC 115 , while considering the scope of Section 100 CPC, 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, Civil Procedure Code, which defines the contours of the power of the High Court in second appeal. ....." 9. ....." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdev Kaur & Others v. Kaki & Others, (2007) 1 SCC 546 , considered the true import, scope and ambit of Section 100 CPC by referring the Section 100 CPC, before and after amendment of 1976, various declarations of law by Privy Council and Supreme Court, Legislative background in the 54th Report of the Law Commission of India submitted in 1973, Historical perspective, Rational behind permitting second appeal on substantial question of law, and held as under: "81. Despite repeated declarations of law by the judgments of this Court and the Privy Council for over a century, still the scope of Section 100 has not been correctly appreciated and applied by the High Courts in a large number of cases. In the facts and circumstances of this case the High Court interfered with the pure findings of fact even after the amendment of Section 100 CPC in 1976. The High Court would not have been justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact in this case even prior to the amendment of Section 100 CPC. The judgment of the High Court is clearly against the provisions of Section 100 and in no uncertain terms clearly violates the legislative intention. 82. In view of the clear legislative mandate crystallized by a series of judgments of the Privy Council and this Court ranging from 1890 to 2006, the High Court in law could not have interfered with pure findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed with costs." 10. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******