ORDER : 1. The present Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Viramgam in Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2018 on 24.2.2021 whereby, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) was pleased to confirm the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2017 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandal in Regular Civil Suit No. 250 of 2016 (Old Regular Civil Suit No. 317 of 2015). 2. The appellant herein is the original defendant and the respondent- original plaintiff had filed a suit for property situated in the outskirt of Mouje Vitthalpur, Taluka Mandal bearing Block/Survey No. 147 paiki in revenue account No. 212 and admeasuring 0-87-01 (H.are.sq.m.) [hereinafter referred to as the “disputed suit property”] mainly stating that the agricultural property is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and he had purchased the said property by a registered sale-deed from the original owners Chhaganbhai Makwana, Dhudabhai and Arjanbhai which was registered before the Sub Registrar Viramgam at S. No. 290. That, the appellant-original defendant was trying to restrain the respondent-original plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The learned trial Court after the summons of the suit was duly served and the original defendant appeared, framed the issues and recorded the entire evidence of both the parties and after hearing the submissions of the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to partly allow the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2017. That, the defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2018 and after hearing the learned advocate for both the parties, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam was pleased to reject the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandal vide order dated 24.2.2021. Hence, the present Second Appeal. 3. The appellant in the appeal memo has mainly contended that the impugned order is against the settled position of law and the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. That, the dispute is with regard to the location of the land and the learned Courts below have erred while passing the impugned judgment and orders. 3. The appellant in the appeal memo has mainly contended that the impugned order is against the settled position of law and the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. That, the dispute is with regard to the location of the land and the learned Courts below have erred while passing the impugned judgment and orders. The appellant has filed the present appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the learned First Appellant Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment, order and decree contrary to the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (b) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is lawful owner and occupant of the suit land as per DLR map Exh.28? (c) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant obstructed him while he was erecting the wire fencing? (d) Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. (e) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in not framing the points for determination as mandatory under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 (b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure? (f) Whether the learned First Appellate Court has erred in not framing the points for determination as mandatory under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure? (g) Whether the learned Court has considered the fact that for the same survey number DLR Map filed by both the parties are different?” 4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Court and First Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence and the main dispute between the parties is regarding the location of the land. As per the say of the plaintiff the property of the original defendant is situated on the east side of Viramgam-Bahucharaji Road which fact has been failed to be appreciated by the learned trial Court. That, the appellant has also produced the map of the DILR which has not been considered by the learned trial Court and hence, he has urged this Court to allow the present Second Appeal. 4.1 The appellant has also filed Civil Application for additional evidence and has urged this Court to allow the appellant to rely upon such relevant documents which were not produced before the learned trial Court to establish his case before this Court. 4.1 The appellant has also filed Civil Application for additional evidence and has urged this Court to allow the appellant to rely upon such relevant documents which were not produced before the learned trial Court to establish his case before this Court. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that to establish the factual aspect of the issue involved in the present appeal, the appellant seeks to rely upon the old village Form 7/12 from the year 1965 onwards and order dated 24th October, 1966 passed by the learned Additional Mamlatdar and the learned tribunal and also mutation entries of the disputed suit property. 5. Mr. Abhisst K. Thaker, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the learned trial Court has considered all the evidence that was produced by both the parties and has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective. The learned First Appellate Court after giving full opportunity to both the parties has passed the impugned judgment and order and there is no substantial question of law that is required to be adjudicated by this Court in this appeal. The appellant is seeking to produce documents which were already in his possession prior to filing of the suit and there is no explanation as to why the documents were not produced at the relevant time. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that the second Appellate Court can permit the additional evidence only if the conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure are fulfilled. That, the appellant has not established, that due diligence was exercised but the evidence was not within his knowledge and at this juncture the appellant cannot be allowed to adduce any further evidence. 5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. 25. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply, when on the basis of evidence on record, the Appellate Court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the rule itself. [Vide: K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 , The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Lala Pancham and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1008 , Soonda Ram and Another vs. Rameshwaralal and Another, AIR 1975 SC 479 and Syed Abdul Khader vs. Rami Reddy and Others, AIR 1979 SC 553 ]. 26. The Appellate Court should not, ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the Court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. [Vide: Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S. K. Mohammed and Others vs. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co. AIR 1978 SC 798 ]. 27. Under Order XLI , Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham and Others (supra)] 28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non- production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. [Vide: State of U.P. vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 and S. Rajagopal vs. C.M. Armugam and Others, AIR 1969 SC 101 ]. 29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. 5.3 In Para 37, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed as under: “37. 5.3 In Para 37, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed as under: “37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite condition incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage.” 5.4 Learned advocate for the respondent has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Kusumben Jashwantbhai and Others vs. Shantibhai Ramanbhai K. Patel and Others passed in Second Appeal No. 91 of 2016 wherein, this Court has observed in para 10 as under: “10. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 in case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel Shri Bhargav Karia, in paragraphs 36 to 49 clearly referred to this aspect, and while discussing the scheme of the provisions of Order 41 in the said judgment, reference is also made to Section 100 of the Code. While referring to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State Bank of India vs. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 it has been quoted: “13....The word ‘substantial’ prefixed to ‘question of law’ does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ‘Substantial questions of law’ means no only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties..........any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law.......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case.” What could be said to be a question of law, therefore has been discussed and it has been stated that there may not be lack of jurisdiction or prohibition in entertaining the Second Appeal in a given circumstance. However, it has to be first established that the findings by the court below are vitiated or perverse. It has been observed quoting from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali, 2002 (3) SCC 634 : “very exceptional cases and on extreme perversity that the authority to examine the same in extenso stands permissible - it is a rarity rather than a regularity and thus in fine it can be safely concluded that while there is no prohibition as such, but the power to scrutiny can only be had in very exceptional circumstances and upon proper circumspection.” 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 7. It is not in dispute that the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded concurrent findings of facts as the same are on the basis of appreciation of evidence. 8. It would be fruitful to mention here that Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to the Second Appeal and sub- section (3) provides that in an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and sub-section (4) provides that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. A Second Appeal is not totally debarred but it is admissible provided such a Second Appeal involves a substantial question of law and/or out of the judgment and decree of the courts below any substantial question of law arises. Thus, a Second Appeal is required to be admitted only if the same involves a substantial question of law. 9. In the present case, the appellant has formulated the proposed substantial questions of law, but the proposed questions of law framed in the present Second Appeal are, in fact, not substantial questions of law but the same are questions of facts. In exercise of powers conferred under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law only. Here in this case, no substantial questions of law have been raised so as to enable this Court to admit the present appeal. It is pertinent to note that the scope of Second Appeal under section 100 is limited. A Second Appeal is competent only if it involves, at the stage of admission, substantial questions of law. The High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, if the findings are perverse but the perversity should be apparent on the face of the record but when the facts have been fairly tried by two Courts and the same conclusion has been reached by both, it is not in the public interest that the facts should be again examined by the ultimate court of appeal. It is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Honourable Apex Court and the practice has become fairly crystallized that this Court ordinarily will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in exceptional cases, where the findings are such that it shocks the conscience of the Court or by disregard to the forms of legal process or some violation of some principles of natural justice or otherwise substantial and grave injustice has been done. It is not possible nor advisable to define those circumstances. It must necessarily be left to the discretion of this Court having regard to the facts of a particular case. 10. It is not possible nor advisable to define those circumstances. It must necessarily be left to the discretion of this Court having regard to the facts of a particular case. 10. It is well settled by diverse decisions of this Court that the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact if the said concurrent findings of fact are based on non-consideration of an important piece of evidence in the nature of admission of one of the party to the suit, which is overlooked by the two courts below. It is equally well settled that under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of facts of the courts below without insufficient and just reasons. It is also required to be noted that in a second appeal, the High Court is also not entitled to set aside concurrent findings of fact by giving its own findings contrary to the evidence on record. 11. In the recent decision in the Case of Kapil Kumar vs. Raj Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 281 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed and held as under: “10. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court on execution of pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said findings were on appreciation of entire evidence on record. Therefore, unless the findings recorded by the courts below were found to be perverse, the same were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under section 100 CPC. 11. Even the substantial question of law framed by the High Court cannot be said to be as such a question of law much less substantial question of law. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that as such no specific substantial question of law seems to have been framed by the High Court. However, it appears that what was considered by the High Court was whether the plaintiff proves the execution of pronote and the receipt by leading cogent evidence.” 12. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that as such no specific substantial question of law seems to have been framed by the High Court. However, it appears that what was considered by the High Court was whether the plaintiff proves the execution of pronote and the receipt by leading cogent evidence.” 12. Considering the submissions made and the decision referred to above and after examining findings of both the courts below on the issue raised in the suit and upon examination of the judgment and orders of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned advocate for the appellant-original defendant is unable to point out any infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by both the courts below. Not only that the learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show that findings recorded by the learned trial courts is without any evidence or there is any illegality in the findings. 13. Under the circumstances, this Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law. Both the learned trial Court and the first appellate court have rightly decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective, and as stated above, no substantial question of law arises in the present Second Appeal. The plaintiff has failed to prove their case before the learned trial court as well as before the learned First Appellate Court. This Court does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of any merits both on facts and law and hence the same is dismissed at admission stage. 14. In view of the above, the Civil Applications stand rejected.