JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2003 by the Principal District Judge, Kheda vide judgment and order dated 21.08.2015 confirming the judgment and decreed in Special Civil Suit No. 52/2011 passed by the 5th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Kheda dated 27.09.2013 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal posing substantial questions of law as under:- "(a) Whether the Courts below were justified in not considering the fact that the respondent-Plaintiff has though disputed the power of attorney, but he has not challenged the same before any Court of law, nor has he filed any complaint nor has he revoked/cancelled the same at any point of time? (b) Whether the Courts below were justified in not considering the fact that the suit filed by the respondent-Plaintiff is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the suit is filed only in the year 2011 challenging the sale deed executed by the appellant No. 1 on the basis of power of attorney dated 26.8.1985? (c) Whether the Courts below were justified in not appreciating that the suit lands have throughout remained in possession of appellants since 1980 till date and respondent-Plaintiff has never taken any action for vacating them?" 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri Mehul Shah appearing with learned advocate, Shri G.P. Baghel for the appellants and learned advocate, Shri M.T.M. Hakim appearing with learned advocate, Shri M.I. Mansuri for the respondent. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah referred to the papers at length and submitted that both the Courts below have misdirected in reading and construing the document viz., power of attorney. He emphasized that the observation that the power of attorney did not give power to sell, is thoroughly misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah referred to both the documents and tried to submit that it is evident from the power of attorney that the powers were given as the respondent-original plaintiff was leaving for abroad. He emphasized that the observation that the power of attorney did not give power to sell, is thoroughly misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah referred to both the documents and tried to submit that it is evident from the power of attorney that the powers were given as the respondent-original plaintiff was leaving for abroad. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah, therefore, submitted that there is no dispute raised with regard to the existence of the power of attorney and if there is valid power of attorney, the documents on the basis of such power of attorney executed, would not make it vulnerable or illegal. He submitted that since the document is required to be executed in favour of the wife of the appellant, there is no mention of consideration. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah submitted that at the time of power of attorney, the appellant had made payment towards the sale consideration and, therefore, since it was the document executed in the name of the wife, there may not be any consideration and, therefore, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence and have totally misdirected in construing the power of attorney. He, therefore, referred to the substantial question of law posed and submitted that the present Second Appeal may be entertained. He has also made feeble attempt to refer to the background of the fact to contend that suit itself would have been time barred by limitation as the suit is filed in the year 2011 challenging the sale deed executed on 30.03.2008 on the basis of the power of attorney dated 26.08.1985. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 and emphasized the observation made in Paragraph No. 28, which reads as under:- "If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide: Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan)." 4. Learned advocate, Shri Hakim, however, referred to the judgment of the trial court and pointedly referred to the discussion on this issue of power of attorney and the manner in which the sale deed is executed. He submitted that the Court below has clearly observed that there is no consideration and the sale deed, Exh. 27 is without consideration. He further emphasized that on the other hand, it is claimed that the amount was paid by the appellant, original plaintiff, for which, no evidence is produced. He also submitted that the Court may also consider that the power of attorney which has been executed in 1985, sale deed is executed in the year 2008, which itself suggests that there was no such power. He emphasized the observation and discussion of the evidence that as the plaintiff was required to go the abroad, the possession was with him, which he had handed over to the appellant herein for taking care and looking after the same and even in Village Form No. 7/12, the name of the plaintiff is shown as the owner and occupier. He therefore submitted that the concurrent findings of fact may not be disturbed. Learned advocate, Shri Hakim submitted that normally the High Court may not disturb the concurrent findings of facts unless there is any substantial of law involved. He submitted that in the facts of the case, it is all appreciation of appreciation which have been considered at length and, therefore, the present Second Appeal may not be entertained. 5. In view of these rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts, the moot question which is required to be considered is whether the present Second Appeal deserves consideration. 6. The substantial questions of law posed, which have been referred to only emphasis with regard to the appreciation of evidence. 5. In view of these rival submissions and having regard to the background of the facts, the moot question which is required to be considered is whether the present Second Appeal deserves consideration. 6. The substantial questions of law posed, which have been referred to only emphasis with regard to the appreciation of evidence. The aspect of limitation is not raised and in any case, it is very conveniently framed for the purpose of limitation that the sale deed executed on the basis of the power of attorney of the year 1985 does not refer to the date of the sale deed. Had the date of sale deed been considered, the suit could not have been time barred. Therefore any such issues, which are posed, can hardly be said to be any question of law much less any substantial question of law. The background of the facts as it emerges, which has been discussed at length by the trial court as well as the first appellate court clearly referred to all issues including the power of attorney and sale deed. Therefore the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah that both the Courts below have misdirected in appreciating and construing the documents, is misconceived. 7. The scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is well settled by the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncement. It is not even the case of the appellant that the relevant document has not been considered or reliance has been placed on extraneous material. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur (supra) referred to and relied upon by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Shah referring to such aspects, is misconceived. This judgment has reference to a case, where relevant material and evidence is not considered at all. Once the relevant documents are considered like in the present case sale deed as well as power of attorney and manner in which it is construed on the basis of material and evidence, it does not constitute a question of law but it is a question of appreciation of material and evidence. Once the relevant documents are considered like in the present case sale deed as well as power of attorney and manner in which it is construed on the basis of material and evidence, it does not constitute a question of law but it is a question of appreciation of material and evidence. Therefore, the concurrent findings of facts, which have been referred to in both the judgments at length referring to this aspect of the power of attorney and manner in which the sale deed is executed, cannot be said to be erroneous much less perverse, which would call for any interference in the Second Appeal. 8. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No. 15 has discussed and same has also been considered by the trial court while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the courts below does not call for any interference and the question of law can hardly be said to be any substantial questions of law involved in the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976 in the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed a word of caution that the concurrent finding of facts may not be disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved. In the facts of the case, as stated above, as there is no substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved, it does not justify the inference in the Second Appeal. What would constitute the substantial question of law has also been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Syeda Rahimunnisa v. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr., reported in AIR 2016 SC 4653 and it has been observed, "A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case." 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also made the observations in a judgment in case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 , wherein, it has clearly observed that:- "The legislative intention is very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become 'third trial on facts' or 'one more dice in the gamble'." 10. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid discussions and background of the facts, the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 11. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.