ORDER : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsels for both the sides on the applications filed under Order 41, Rule 3 read with Order 42, Rule 1 CPC as also additional application filed under Order 41, Rule 2 CPC which has been moved by learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By way of filing these applications, learned counsel for the appellant has proposed to frame three additional substantial questions relating to arbitration award dated 19th March, 2001 Ex. A-2 and about lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court after filing of this arbitral award. 3. Learned counsel also referred some pronouncements in support of the arguments advanced by him. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order sheet dated 12th September, 2006 of the trial Court whereby the appellant/defendant prayed to withdraw the application filed by him on 23rd May, 2001 while not pressing it. 5. On perusal of the said application dated 23rd May, 2001, it comes out that the defendant prayed before the trial Court that the case be decided in view of the arbitral award given by the arbitrator but this application dated 23rd May, 2001 came to be withdrawn on the prayer made by appellant on 12th September, 2006, meaning thereby that the defendant did not choose to press his prayer that the matter be disposed of in terms of the arbitral award. 6. Though, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as soon as the award was filed before the trial Court, it had become functus officio and the award should has been passed but it appears from the perusal of the record that even after filing the application on 23rd May, 2001, no such prayer was pressed before the trial Court and probably for that reason, the proceedings of the suit continued. 7. Be that as it may, after the prayer made on 12th September, 2006 for withdrawing the application, it is abundantly clear that the appellant herein did not press any more to dispose of the matter based on the arbitration award. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that even before the first appellate Court, this issue was not agitated by the appellant that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact of the said award and has thus committed illegality. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that even before the first appellate Court, this issue was not agitated by the appellant that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact of the said award and has thus committed illegality. It also goes to show that he did not intend to press the award thereafter. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn attention of this Court to the statement of respondent Pabu Singh PW-1 wherein he has stated in his cross-examination that he did not appoint any arbitrators. He has also stated that Chandan Singh announced the award without hearing him which is not accepted by him. In view of above, the very foundation of the award Ex. A-2 for taking it into consideration comes under suspicion. Moreover, it has not been pressed upon by the appellant after 12.09.2006 before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Hence, the applications moved by learned counsel for the appellant to take into consideration the said award at the stage of this second appeal do not find any favour and being divided of merit, the same is liable to be rejected. 10. The matter was also heard as regards the admission of this civil second appeal and the substantial question proposed to be framed as mentioned in the memo of appeal. 11. Following questions have been proposed by learned counsel for the appellant: (i) Whether the first appellate court while reversing the decree of dismissal of suit passed by the trial court has committed a serious error of law in not traversing in its impugned judgment, the well founded reasons recorded by the learned trial court in support of its decision? (ii) Whether the first appellate court has committed also a grave and serious error of law in not considering the settlement reached by the parties by way of Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 by resorting to conciliation proceedings? (iii) Whether the first appellate court has further committed a serious error of law in not considering and taking into account the requirement of injunction i.e. Strong case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, and that has rendered its findings laconic? (iv) Whether the appellate court was justified on re-appreciation of evidence to take a contrary view from that of the trial court when the view taken by the trial was also possible view? 12. (iv) Whether the appellate court was justified on re-appreciation of evidence to take a contrary view from that of the trial court when the view taken by the trial was also possible view? 12. Question No. 2 as mentioned above also refers to the documents Ex.A-1 (agreement for arbitration) and Ex.A-2 (Arbitration award). 13. The issue regarding these documents has already been discussed above, and in view of the discussion made above, there remains no factual as well as legal issue to be discussed in this second appeal. 14. The above-mentioned proposed substantial question No. 3 relates to the points required to be considered while granting injunction which is also not relevant to be considered at the stage of this second appeal. Rest of the three proposed questions are apparently relating to the factual aspect of the matter for which first appellate court is the final court as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) RLW 922 (SC). 15. In view of discussions made above, no substantial question emerges out from the controversy involved in the matter in hand which are required to be framed. The grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal also do not suggest that there is any misreading or non reading of relevant evidence by the first appellate court or any perversity has, in any way, committed by it while passing the judgment impugned. 16. In view of above, no substantial question is required to be framed and accordingly the second appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.