JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Draft Amendment is granted. 2. The present Second Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure posing the substantial questions of law which were rendered by way of Draft Amendment as follows: "(1) Whether original owner's claim can be refused by Ld. Trial Court without going into merits and perusing only technical ground of limitation? (2) Whether forefather's of present appellant (Orig. Owners's) land can be transferred by revenue authorities under one word "Oral Agreement" transferred without any sale deed terming all transactions null and void thereafter and "ab initio void"? (3) Whether present appellant as being original owner is entitled for possession of lane of his forefathers? 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Shashikant S. Gade for the Appellants, learned Advocate Shri C.R. Mishra for Respondent No. 1, learned Advocate Shri J.K. Gandhi for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 to 10, and learned AGP Shri P.P. Banaji for Respondent Nos. 11 to 13. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Gade has referred to the averments including the communication dated 26.2.2010 at Annexure-A to support his contention that the land in question was in the name of the original owner Gobarji Kaluji since 1926-1927 which is said to have been given by oral agreement. He submitted that the land cannot be transferred by oral agreement as per the Transfer of Property Act. He further submitted that as further recorded in Annexure-B, which is again a communication from the office of the Mamlatdar, the record is not traceable and therefore the present Second Appeal may be admitted for the questions of law as posed by him. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Gandhi however referred to the observations and the findings of the first appellate court while confirming the judgment and order of the trial court below Exh. 14 in Regular Civil Suit No. 165 of 2012. He pointedly referred to the observations that earlier Civil Suit No. 114/2011 was also filed which was time barred and was dismissed against which no appeal has been preferred and therefore the judgment and order in the said Civil Suit No. 114 of 2011 has become final in spite of the fact that the present Suit has been filed as recorded in the observation and findings of the first appellate court. He also submitted that from 1924 - 1925 and thereafter the subsequent transactions which have taken place has been discussed including the earlier litigations. He also submitted that the original owner Gobarji Kaluji who is said to have sold the land to Chotalal Mansukhlal resulting in the mutation of the entry in the name of the purchaser - Chotalal Mansukhlal in the year 1983 has not been challenged and for the first time the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 165 of 2012 came to be filed which is admittedly time barred. Learned Advocate has in fact referred to the papers and submitted that the averments in the plaint itself clearly admits about the fact that the suit is filed at much belated stage and the entries have been made regarding the transactions and therefore there is no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved. He submitted that therefore the concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed in the Second Appeal considering the limited scope of interference in the Second Appeals. 6. Learned AGP Shri P.P. Banaji has also referred to the communication and submitted that the communication has been addressed based on the verification regarding the factual aspects. However, he supported the contention of learned Advocate Shri J.K. Gandhi on the aspect of delay and the order passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the first appellate court. 7. In background of the findings and the discussions made herein above, the concurrent findings of facts does not call for any interference with exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Code. It is well settled that the scope of exercise of discretion after the amendment in the Code in 1976 in Section 100 in the Second Appeal is very limited and the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad guidelines expressing a word of caution. The background of the facts as narrated clearly points out about the staleness of the claim which is said to be made. Apart from that it is also evident that Civil Suit No. 114 of 2011 was filed which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.8.2012 on the ground of limitation. Therefore again in the Suit that is the present Suit No. 165 of 2012 came to be filed which led to filing of an application Exh. Apart from that it is also evident that Civil Suit No. 114 of 2011 was filed which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 1.8.2012 on the ground of limitation. Therefore again in the Suit that is the present Suit No. 165 of 2012 came to be filed which led to filing of an application Exh. 14 by the other side for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. The trial court after hearing the parties has passed the order impugned which has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2015. 8. Therefore, having regard to the background of the facts and the rival submissions, no substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved. It is also well settled that unless there is a substantial question of law which can be said to have been involved the High Court would not in exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Code interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. It is also well settled that the High Court would not interfere permitting the parties to have third trial on facts without involvement of any substantial question of law. It is also made very clear that it is not the question of law but there has to be a substantial question of law. Meaning thereby, unless there is a substantial question of law involved, normally the High Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts. 9. What could be the substantial question of law has also been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again including the observations made in a judgment in case of Nagarpalika Thakurdwara v. Khalil Ahmed and ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4477 . 10. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid background of facts the present Second Appeal cannot be entertained on the substantial questions of law as posed while submitting the Draft Amendment based on the contention of the so-called oral agreement and absence of any written document for transfer of the land initially ignoring subsequent developments and the aspect of delay in filing the suit including the dismissal of the earlier suit on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore the present Second Appeal along with Civil Application deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.