Judgment A.M. SAPRE, J. Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sibsagar in Title Appeal No. 16 of 1994 arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.09.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sibsagar in Title Suit No. 77 of 1987. By impugned judgment and decree, the first Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for ejectment/recovery of arrears. So the short question that 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 so as to admit this appeal for final hearing? I have noticed that this appeal was filed as far back as in the year 2000. For one or other reason in last 14 years it was not heard on the question of admission and remained pending. I have perused the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff) and find that it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 100(3) of the C.P. Code which in clear terms provide that memorandum of appeal should specify the substantial question of law arising in the case. In other words, I noticed that the memorandum of appeal did not specify much less precisely what according to the appellant is a substantial question of law involved in this second appeal as provided under Section 100. The memorandum of appeal contains only the requirement of Order 41 Rule 1(2). This being a second appeal under Section 100, it is necessary for the appellant to precisely set out the substantial question of law arising in the case and it is for the Court to decide whether such question arises or not. If arises, then the same has to be framed while admitting the appeal and notice is to be issued to the respondent for final hearing of the appeal only on such question as provided in sub-section (5). Since the appellant has failed to set out the substantial question of law arising in the appeal, I have no option but to dismiss the appeal on such ground because it goes to the root of the matter. Since the appellant has failed to set out the substantial question of law arising in the appeal, I have no option but to dismiss the appeal on such ground because it goes to the root of the matter. Apart from this infirmity, even otherwise I was not able to notice any substantial question of law, involved in the appeal. Here is a case where two Court dismissed appellant’s suit for ejectment and arrears filed against the respondent in relation to suit property. Both the judgments rendered by two courts below are reasoned and records finding on all the relevant factual issues arising in the case. That apart, the findings on material issues are such that they are capable of being recorded on appreciating the evidence on record. They are neither perverse nor dehors the pleadings and nor against the evidence. In other words, findings are such that any man having ordinary judicial prudence would be in a position to record such finding. In my view, therefore, the impugned concurrent findings of fact which are otherwise binding on the second appellate Court does not suffer from any kind of error much less error so as to constitute any substantial question of law involved in appeal. The cumulative effect of this would be that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It merits dismissal in limini. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed in limini. Before parting with the case, I am inclined to observe that dismissal of appeal would not come in the way of plaintiff’s (appellant’s herein) filing any fresh suit against the respondents in relation to suit property based upon cause of action other than the one on which the present suit was filed. In case, if any such suit is filed then the same would be tried on its merit notwithstanding dismissal of the suit out of which this appeal arises. No cost.