JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This is a defendant's Second Appeal, where the defendant/appellant has put a challenge, to the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2011, as rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge/2nd Fast Tract Court, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2010, Ram Jiyavan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, had been dismissed and as a consequence thereto, the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2010, which was rendered in Civil Suit No. 113 of 2006, Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Gunai Ram, has been affirmed thereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed. 2. Before the learned trial Court, when the issue was raised by the plaintiff/respondent, for grant of a decree of permanent injunction in relation to the property, which was a subject matter of dispute i.e. the land lying in khata khatauni No. 00162, khasra No. 255, having an area of 0.1500 hectares; which was a land, which was recorded in shreni 4, belonging and recorded with the State, which was claimed by the plaintiff/respondents to be in their possession for a considerable long period, hence sought a decree of permanent injunction. 3. The claim of right by the plaintiff/respondent, was on the basis of the entries, which have made in the revenue records, which was placed before the Court below by way of khatauni paper No. 10ga and Khasra paper No. 11ga, and also filed an application, which plaintiff filed before the Tehsildar. The learned trial Court, while recording the findings on issue No. 1, based on the revenue entries, had affirmed the fact that the plaintiff/respondent stood recorded in the revenue records and his possession too, on the basis of khasra was proved. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The said finding has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court by the judgement dated 04.07.2011. 4. The defendant/appellant has raised a question before this Court with regards to the tenability of the proceedings before the Civil Court, and that too for the first time on the ground that the land, which was the subject matter of the suit was lying in shreni 4, and hence the matter in issue ought to have been referred to be decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by framing issue as contemplated under Section 331A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, but the same was not done. 5. 5. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the records, is of the view that the said question of jurisdiction or the tenability of the proceedings was never an issue framed or raised by the defendant/appellant before the Court below, nor it is a substantial question, which is even framed before this Court also. Apart from it, the second appeal is pending ever since 2011, and no effort has ever been made by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant to press the Second Appeal for admission at any stage and it was never argued ever since then. 6. In view of the fact that the finding of the possession which has been recorded by both the Courts below, being a concurrent finding of fact which was based on the evidence of the revenue record, which was placed before the Courts below, coupled with the fact that the question of reference being made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector was not a question, which was ever raised either before the First Appellate Court or before the Second Appellate Court by way of a substantial question of law, the second appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed, as conducted by concurrent finding of facts, and it engages consideration of no substantial question of law to be answered by this Court.