JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The delay in filing this appeal having been condoned vide order of date passed on Delay Condonation Application, let the appeal be registered with regular number and the old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number. 2. As requested by learned counsel for appellant, I proceed to hear the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. today itself. 3. This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. He instituted Original Suit No. 1131 of 2004 seeking permanent injunction in respect to property in dispute. The Trial Court formulated following eight issues: ^^1- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe o mlesa fLFkr oLrqvksa dk ekfyd o dkfct gS\ 2- D;k nkok oknh /kkjk&331 tehankjh fouk'k vf/k0 ls ckf/kr gS\ 3- D;k okn ds lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj nhokuh U;k;ky; dks izkIr gS\ 4- D;k nkok oknh nQk&49 pdcUnh vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ 5- D;k nkok /kkjk 80 lh0ih0lh0 ls ckf/kr gS\ 6- D;k nkok oknh /kkjk 106 iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\ 7- D;k nkok vYiewY;kafdr ,oa iznRr U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 8- vU; vuqrks"k\** English Translation by the Court: "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner having possession over the disputed land and the articles therein? 2. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by Section 331 of the Zamindari Abolition Act? 3. Whether the jurisdiction to hear the suit lies with the civil court? 4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act? 5. Whether the claim is barred by Section 80 of the CPC? 6. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by Section 106 of the Panchayat Raj Act? 7. Whether the claim is under valued and the court fee paid is insufficient? 8. Other relief?" 4. The substantial issue no. 1 relating to right of plaintiff over the property in dispute was answered by Trial Court against plaintiff and the suit was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.9.2008 whereagainst the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 326 of 2008 which has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2014 concurring with the view taken by Trial Court that since the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the property in dispute, he was not entitled for grant of injunction. 5. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which could not be shown perverse in any manner. It is not the case of the appellant that any relevant piece of evidence was ignored or any impermissible or irrelevant evidence was taken into account or there is any other perversity, legal or otherwise, in the judgments impugned in this second appeal. I, therefore, do not find that any substantial question of law has arisen in this Second Appeal warranting consideration by this Court. 6. Dismissed.