Judgment Heard Mr. A. K. Barooah, learned counsel for the appellants. This is an appeal filed by the defendant (State of Assam) against the judgment and decree dated 27th of April, 2012 passed in Money Appeal No.11 of 2009 by the Court of Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati arising out of judgment and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed by Munsiff No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati passed in Money Suit No.102/2006. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned first appellate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the State and in turn confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which had decreed the plaintiffs’ suit for recovery of Rs.1,44,133.90 against the appellant (State). So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C. P. Code? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention. The appellant is the defendant whereas respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs.1,44,133.90 paisa. The suit was founded on an allegation that the respondent was awarded some civil work by the appellant (State) and the same was completed by the respondent in time in accordance with the works order. It was alleged that a bill for Rs.1,14,665/- was then submitted by the respondent being No.FF/1 dated 05.01.2004 for the work done by them but unfortunately despite repeated reminders, the appellant failed to pay the bill amount to respondent. It was alleged that respondent therefore sent a legal notice under Section 80 of the C P Code to appellant demanding the unpaid money. Since it was not paid and hence the suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant out of which this second appeal arises claiming money decree for recovery of Rs.1,44,133.90 paisa with interest. The appellant filed a written statement. They, however, did not dispute that respondent was awarded the work in question, that they completed the work and yet not paid for the work done. They only raised the technical pleas such as suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 C P Code and secondly, plaintiff’s firm was not registered etc. The plaintiffs adduced evidence in support of their claim whereas defendant did not adduce any evidence. They only raised the technical pleas such as suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 C P Code and secondly, plaintiff’s firm was not registered etc. The plaintiffs adduced evidence in support of their claim whereas defendant did not adduce any evidence. The trial court decreed the suit by answering all the issues in plaintiffs’ favour and overruled all technical objection raised by the appellant. The defendant felt aggrieved filed the first appeal being Money Appeal No.11/2009. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned first appellate Judge concurred with the reasoning and conclusion of learned Munsiff and accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is against this concurrent judgment and decree, the State (defendant) has felt aggrieved and filed this second appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the entire record of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C P Code and therefore it is liable to be dismissed in limini. Apart from the fact that this appeal arises out of a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below, the findings in my view, are just and proper calling no interference. In the first place, the question as to whether plaintiff did the work for the State or not is essentially a question of fact. Secondly, both the Courts having found on evidence that plaintiff did the work in accordance with the work order and yet was not paid is binding on this Court. Thirdly, the very fact that appellant did not adduce any evidence was sufficient to draw adverse inference against them. Fourthly, the plaintiff discharged their initial burden in proving their case and lastly, the findings recorded by the two courts below are neither against any pleadings nor against the evidence and nor are such that no judicial person with average capacity can ever record. In other words, the findings are such that they are capable of being recorded on proper appreciation of the evidence. Indeed, here is a case where plaintiff did work for the defendant and completed the contract but still they were not paid for the work done by them. The State should not have contested this case because it was a genuine case for want of any defence in the suit. Indeed, here is a case where plaintiff did work for the defendant and completed the contract but still they were not paid for the work done by them. The State should not have contested this case because it was a genuine case for want of any defence in the suit. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limini as involving no substantial question of law. No cost.