JUDGMENT Sudesh Bansal, J. - This appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants- RSRTC (hereinafter `the RSRTC') against judgment and decree dated 4-4-2016 in First appeal No.8/2014 (137/2014) passed by additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan while dismissing appeal affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30-9-2014 in Civil Suit No.187/2011 passed by the additional Civil Judge No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan whereby and whereunder impugned order No.36 dated 15-1-2010 was declared being against principles of natural justice null and void and accordingly the plaintiff was declared entitled to all service benefits as prior to impugned order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the RSRTC and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-4-2016 passed by the appellate court as also the judgment and decree dated 30-9-2014 passed by the trial court. 3. a perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial court indicates that the trial court considering lapses in enquiry conducted by defendants came to the conclusion that impugned order dated 15-1-2010 passed by defendants was not speaking one, consequently being against principles of natural justice was liable to be quashed and as such issue No.1 was decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.2 regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court was decided against defendants. Similarly issue No.3 regarding premature suit as no appeal was filed by plaintiff against impugned order was also decided against defendants as they failed to show any provision for filing appeal by plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed and impugned order dated 15-1-2010 was quashed and plaintiff was declared entitled to all service benefits as prior to impugned order. 4. First appellate court finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court found no force in the appeal filed by the RSRTC and dismissing the same affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 5. In my considered opinion both the courts below have not committed any illegality. I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial as affirmed by the first appellate court as it is based on pure finding of facts. No substantial question of law is made out. absent any substantial question of law, a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable. 6. Consequently, this second appeal is without any force and the same stands dismissed. 7. Stay application also stands dismissed.