ORDER 1. Appellant-defendant has filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2016 passed in Civil First Appeal No.06/2013 by Additional District Judge, Bansur, District Alwar, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bansur, District Alwar in Civil Suit No.51/09 whereby following decree has been passed against the appellant-defendant:- 2. It appears from the record that the dispute between parties is in relation to a gali measuring 2.6 feet and 23 feet. This gully exists at the first floor between the shops of plaintiff and defendant No.1. In fact, there is no dispute about the length of gully being 23 feet rather the dispute is that the width of gali is of 2.6 feet or 2.3 feet. As per plaint, width of gully is 2.6 feet but the defendant has encroached upon the portion of gali by 3 inch whereas, as per written statement, the width of gali is 2.3 feet and on three inch portion, plaintiff has made encroachment. The trial court, in order to adjudicate the aforesaid dispute arrived at between parties under their rival pleadings, considered the evidence adduced by both parties. Apart from the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court relied upon the documents of sale deed itself (Exhibit-1) through which defendant purchased the shop. In the sale deed (Exhibit-1) itself the width of gali, situated in front of the defendant's shop, has been mentioned as 2.6 feet. That apart, defendant and his witness D.W.2 themselves admitted that the width of gali is 2.6 feet. The explanation of the defendant to this effect is that in the sale deed a wrong mentioning about the measurement of this gali was made, later on it transpired that at site the width of gali in front of his shop is only 2.3 feet and the 3 inch portion has been encroached upon by plaintiff and not by defendant. However, this explanation/defense of the defendant was not found proved by his evidence nor the defendant filed any counter claim against the plaintiff. 3. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of parties, more particularly the sale deed (Exhibit-1), concluded that the gali of 2.6 feet width be kept intact and unhindered for the purpose of egress/ingress through this gali and the encroachment over this gali by defendant, if any, the same be removed. The trial court also considered the report of Court Commissioner. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence of parties, more particularly the sale deed (Exhibit-1), concluded that the gali of 2.6 feet width be kept intact and unhindered for the purpose of egress/ingress through this gali and the encroachment over this gali by defendant, if any, the same be removed. The trial court also considered the report of Court Commissioner. By perusal of report of the Court Commissioner, it revealed that this gali is having length of more than 23 feet. In front side the width of gali has been found as 2.6 feet wide but in between shops of plaintiff and defendant the width of gali has been found as 2.3 feet wide. Thus, the report of the Court Commissioner also corroborates the fact that the gali in question has been encroached by 3 inch. Since, the trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that encroachment of 3 inch in the gali in question is made by defendant No.1, the impugned decree has been passed. 4. In first appeal, the first appellate court has re-heard the matter again and on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the findings of the trial court. The first appellate court has passed the judgment appreciating each and every issue independently and separately as also having considered the findings of the trial court while re-appreciating the evidence. The first appellate court also considered the report of the Court Commissioner, oral evidence of parties and documents of sale deed. Findings of the trial court were found be well within parameters of law and without any infirmity/perversity. Hence, the first appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that findings of both courts below are perverse as plaintiff has failed to produce any sufficient evidence to show that the defendant made encroachment over the 3 inch portion of the gali in question. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned judgments and record. 7. As far as, the issue in relation to encroachment over the portion of gali of three inch is concerned, the same is a question of fact and both courts, on appreciation of evidence have concluded that defendant has made encroachment over this gali by 3 inch. More particularly, documents of sale deed (Exhibit-1) of defendant himself, do not support the defense taken by defendant. More particularly, documents of sale deed (Exhibit-1) of defendant himself, do not support the defense taken by defendant. In the sale deed itself the width of gali has been shown by 2.6 feet. That apart, the defendant and his witness also admit this fact. 8. In such view of matter, arguments raised by counsel for appellant cannot be appreciated. In view of concurrent findings of fact in relation to the encroachment over the portion of 3 inch of gali in question, no substantial question of law arises in the second appeal. Counsel for appellant has not pointed out any illegality/perversity in the impugned judgment nor the same suffers from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. In absence of any substantial question of law, the second appeal is not liable to be entertained. The substantial questions of law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of fact which requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible within scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings of impugned judgments. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts even if erroneous cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [ (2001) 9 SCC 521 ], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [ (1981) 2 SCC 414 ], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [ (2000) 1 SCC 434 ] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [ (2019) 10 SCC 595 ]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained. 9. Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be without force and same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 10. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.