ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant, Municipal Council Bhilwara, has laid this second appeal under section 100 CPC to assail impugned judgment and decree dated 30th of August 2016 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned first appellate Court') affirming judgment and decree dated 15th of October, 2012 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against appellant before learned trial Court on the ground that he jointly purchased with his brother a plot measuring 40 X 70 ft. situated in Subhash Nagar area from his predecessor-in-title Devi Lal S/o Pokhar Lal, and, accordingly, a sale-deed was executed on 11th of August 1995 in their names. Subsequent to the purchase, the plot was divided into two parts and half of its share remained with the respondent. The plaint further unfurls that respondent-plaintiff on his portion raised construction in the year 2002. The cause of grievance as ventilated in the suit refer to alleged coercive action by Municipal Council to evict him from the land in question and further creating hurdles in raising further construction. With these pleadings, the respondent-plaintiff has prayed for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the Municipal Council from creating any hindrance in his construction activities and peaceful enjoyment of the property. 3. The suit was contested by appellant Municipal Council. In the written statement, appellant refuted all the averments made in plaint. The appellant also raised serious objections about right, title and interest of the respondent over land in question so also title of his predecessor-in-title. A specific objection was raised in the written statement that the land in question is a Govt. property and the respondent-plaintiff prepared fake documents to grab the same. Coercive action taken by appellant, Municipal Council against respondent-plaintiff is also highlighted in the written statement. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed issues for determination. For substantiating his case, respondent-plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and also produced sale-deed (Ex.1) and notice (Ex.2). On behalf of appellant, one witness D.W.1 Rustam Ali Sheikh appeared in the witness box. 5. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed issues for determination. For substantiating his case, respondent-plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and also produced sale-deed (Ex.1) and notice (Ex.2). On behalf of appellant, one witness D.W.1 Rustam Ali Sheikh appeared in the witness box. 5. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence of rival parties, by its judgment and decree dated 15th of October 2012 decided the solitary issue in favour of respondent-plaintiff and consequently granted the desired relief of perpetual injunction to him. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, appellant preferred first appeal before learned first appellate Court under section 96 CPC and the learned first appellate Court examined the matter de-novo. The appellant also made an endeavour before the learned first appellate Court by laying an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. The learned first appellate Court considered the said application and also examined the trial Court's judgment and decree on merits while considering the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, the learned first appellate Court observed that production of a document after 13 years creates suspicion about its genuineness and consequently declined the prayer of appellant. While adverting to the merits of case, learned first appellate Court, upon examining the judgment passed by learned trial Court in exercise of power under Order 41, Rule 31 CPC, did not find any infirmity so as to interfere with the same. Resultantly, the learned first appellate Court rejected the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgments of both the courts below as well as entire record of the case. 8. Upon examining the matter, in my considered opinion, prima facie, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. At the threshold, learned trial Court examined the matter in its entirety and, upon appreciation of evidence recorded finding of fact in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Subsequently, the learned first appellate Court has concurred with the said finding of fact. 9. A close scrutiny of oral evidence in conjunction with the documentary evidence, which was available on record, makes it abundantly clear that both the courts below have not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. Subsequently, the learned first appellate Court has concurred with the said finding of fact. 9. A close scrutiny of oral evidence in conjunction with the documentary evidence, which was available on record, makes it abundantly clear that both the courts below have not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. It is trite that in second appeal appreciation of evidence is not permissible and it can be entertained only when substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The existence of substantial question of law is sinequa-non for maintainability of second appeal. 10. Upon overall analysis of the appeal in conjunction with the available materials, in my opinion, it is bereft of any substantial question of law. Therefore, no interference with the concurrent finding of fact is called for. 11. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.