JUDGMENT 1. - Neither the appellant nor his Advocate is present. It appears that the Advocates have abstained themselves from work today due to the call of strike given by the Bar Association. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant plaintiff, challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 22/2014, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment & decree dated 19.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. division) (North), Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.32/08. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant in respect of the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.258/2014 Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Urban Improvement Trust through its Secretary Kota plot in question. It was alleged interalia that the respondent defendant had invited applications for allotment of the plots at concessional rates from the people belonging to the weaker section of the society, pursuant to which the appellant-plaintiff had applied for a plot admeasuring 400 square yards. The appellant-plaintiff had also deposited Rs. 300/-as per the advertisement and he was required to deposit further amount @ Rs. 4 per square yard as per the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. According to the appellant-plaintiff, subsequently the respondent-defendant had altered the terms and conditions and increased the rate @ per square yard for the allotment of the plot. The appellant-plaintiff therefore made a representation on 21.11.1975 and also deposited Rs. 1310/- calculated on the basis of the rates mentioned in the advertisement, for which a receipt was issued on 28.11.1975. According to the appellant, though the said amount was deposited, the respondent neither allotted the plot nor refunded the amount deposited by the appellant. Hence, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondent by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that since the appellant had failed to deposit the money in compliance of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was not delivered to the appellant. Hence, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondent by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that since the appellant had failed to deposit the money in compliance of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was not delivered to the appellant. According to the respondent, because of non payment of money, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.258/2014 Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Urban Improvement Trust through its Secretary Kota the allotment letter issued in favour of the appellant had automatically stood cancelled. 4. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against which the appeal was preferred by him before the appellate court, which was also dismissed vide the judgment & decree. Being aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Umesh Sharma, power of attorney holder of the appellant that the appellant had made many representations to the respondent for the allotment of the plot as the appellant had already deposited the amount as per the advertisement, however the respondent had not allotted the plot nor refunded the money. He further submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record, and dismissed the suit on the ground of the limitation, though the issue of the limitation was not raised by the courts below. 6. After having considered the submissions made by the power of attorney holder of the appellant and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, it transpires that though the appellant-plaintiff was required to deposit the amount for allotment of the plot in question, as per the allotment letter, he had failed to deposit the same, which had resulted into cancellation of the allotment. It is pertinent to note that the appellant-plaintiff had deposited the amount @ Rs. 4 per square S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.258/2014 Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Urban Improvement Trust through its Secretary Kota yard whereas he was required to deposit @ Rs. 10 per square yard which could not be said to be sufficient compliance. The said amount was deposited in November 1975, however the suit was filed in the year 2008. 4 per square S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.258/2014 Ghanshyam Das Gupta v. Urban Improvement Trust through its Secretary Kota yard whereas he was required to deposit @ Rs. 10 per square yard which could not be said to be sufficient compliance. The said amount was deposited in November 1975, however the suit was filed in the year 2008. There is no explanation of coming forth as to why the appellant did not take any action during the period 1975 to 2008. Both the courts below having rightly considered the legal and factual aspects of the matter, and the appellant-plaintiff failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments & decrees passed by the courts below. 7. In that view of the matter, the second appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******