JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. List revised. No one is present for respondent. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against impugned judgment and decree dated 4.12.1992 passed in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1992 "State of U.P. Vs. Km. Bindu Bala". 3. Heard Sri Sudhir Solanki, learned Standing Counsel for appellant-State of U.P. and perused the record. 4. The brief facts relating to the instant appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.411 of 1990 against State of U.P. for obtaining a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to declare her to have passed in Class-XIth and declaring result of Class-XIIth. According to her she obtained 372 marks out of 1000 in Class-XIth and fell short of 9 marks in getting minimum required marks in the subject of English. It was contended that according to rules she could have been given grace of upto 10 marks so she is to be declared passed in Class-XIth and her result of Class-XIIth be declared. 5. Upon pleadings and evidence of parties learned trial court in its findings on issue no.3 held that plaintiff obtained 66 marks in Physics and could have been given grace of 9 marks in English, while it was the case of defendant-appellant that in Physics the plaintiff was required to secure at least 21 out of 70 marks in written examination and 9 marks out of 30 in Practical. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned judgment and decree passed by two courts below are wrong and incorrect and against the provisions of law; that plaintiff was required to get minimum passing marks in written and practical exams of Physics, separately and so for not obtaining such passing marks, she was correctly considered to have failed in Physics also apart from English and so she was not entitled for grace marks in two subjects; that suit was barred by provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. and various substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal. 7. The trial court has held that total marks obtained in written and practical examination are to be considered collectively and since she has obtained 66 marks in Physics she may not to be considered to have failed in the examination. The lower appellate court has also agreed with the findings of trial court and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by trial court. 8. The lower appellate court has also agreed with the findings of trial court and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by trial court. 8. In view of the findings of two courts below, I find that it is a clear case of concurrent findings of fact based on cogent reasoning and there is no substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal. It is also pertinent to mention that vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.1992 the suit of plaintiff was decreed with the order that by declaring her pass in Class-XIth the result of XIIth Class be declared. There is nothing on record to show that what was her result of Class-XIth and whether she passed Class-XIIth or could not pass. In any way since passing of decree by trial court more than 27 years have elapsed and there appears no sense in proceeding with the appeal while in case of her having been passed, she would have proceeded further in education as well as in life or would have re-appeared in Class-XIIth in case of having been failed. 9. In view of discussions made above, I find that the appeal is devoid of merits for want of any substantial question of law, and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 9. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with a copy of this order.