JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), challenging the concurrent finding arrived at by the learned Court below wherein the learned Civil Court passed below Exh. 71 in RCS No. 220 of 1989, whereby the learned Civil Court invoking the Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code rejected the plaint which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in RCA No. 26 of 2015. 2. The Second Appeal has been preferred on passing following question of law on substantial questions of law :- “ A) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in pursuance of section 27 of the General Clauses Act in pursuance of the presumption as to the ground of maintainability of the regular civil suit is improper to the opponent original defendant herein? B) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has rightly considered Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? C) Whether the Lower Appellate Court had observed Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in pursuance of the document marked exhibit without objection is not proper?” 3. The brief facts gathered from the impugned orders that the plaintiff filed RCS No. 38 of 1989 in Civil Court seeking accounts of the partnership firm. The immoveable property namely Patel Chambers in the village of Siddhpura was purchased by the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1984. According to the plaintiff the said ‘Patel Chambers’ is in his possession and he has also obtained permission to carry the further construction therein. A partnership firm namely Umiya Land Development Corporation was formed for the development of the ‘Patel Chambers’. However, according to the appellant-plaintiff two other firms namely ‘Patel Chambers’ and ‘Uma Construction’ were fraudulently created. The dispute regarding the accounts thus arose between the parties and thereby, the plaintiff has filed the R.C.S. No. 38 of 1989, before the learned Civil Court seeking accounts of the partnership firm. In the proceedings of R.C.S No. 38 of 1989, the learned Civil Court believed that the issue raised between the parties is covered by the arbitration Clause and as the learned Civil Court referred R.C.S No. 38 of 1989 for arbitration. In the proceedings of R.C.S No. 38 of 1989, the learned Civil Court believed that the issue raised between the parties is covered by the arbitration Clause and as the learned Civil Court referred R.C.S No. 38 of 1989 for arbitration. The order since was not acceptable to the plaintiff, being aggrieved he has filed M.C.A No. 8 of 1990 before the very same Court but he remained unsuccessful and thereafter he filed R.C.A 9 of 2005 before the Additional District Judge, Patan. The same is also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patan vide order dated 29.02.2020. No further challenge was made by the plaintiff against the said findings. 4. Meanwhile, the plaintiff preferred another suit being R.C.S No. 220 of 1989 with identical plea. As the learned Civil Court believed that the dispute between the parties are arbitral dispute and deserves to be decided by the Arbitration proceedings with a finding thereof has been confirmed upto the Court of Additional District Judge, the learned Trial Court by passing order below Exh. 71 rejected the R.C.S No. 220 of 1989 in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 5. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred R.C.A. 26 of 2015, before the 3 rd Additional District Judge at Patan, which came to be rejected. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Seeking admission of the Second Appeal, learned advocate Mr. Amit Joshi appearing for the plaintiff-appellant would mainly submit that the appellant-plaintiff did not get a chance to prove his case on merit. The appellant-plaintiff has clearly pleaded fraud and further prayed that the 2 firms namely ‘Patel Chambers’ and ‘Uma Construction’ were created fraudulently to fill up the plaintiff’s account and profit received therefrom by making construction under the partnership firm namely Umiya Land Development Corporation. He would further submit that since the plaintiff did not get a chance to prove his case and since the plaintiff has pleaded fraud thereon which could only be ascertained during the trial, the order passed by the learned Court below impugned in the Second Appeal is against the settled principle of law. Therefore, he submits to admit the Second Appeal under aforesaid question of law, treating them as substantial questions of law or any other substantial and question of law this Court deemed 7. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Therefore, he submits to admit the Second Appeal under aforesaid question of law, treating them as substantial questions of law or any other substantial and question of law this Court deemed 7. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Amit Joshi and perusing the impugned judgment and order as well as the judgment and order passed in R.C.A No. 9 of 2005, I am of opinion that the Second Appeal is bereft of any merit for the following reasons. There is almost identical plea in R.C.S No. 38 of 1989 and 220 of 1989. Plea raised in the R.C.S No. 38 of 1989 has been declined on the ground that there is a arbitration clause between the party. Section 32 and 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 provides a complete and comprehensive adjudication and in view of this the Civil Court declined to decide the suit where arbitration clause have been adopted by the parties to arbitrate their dispute. The finding of the learned Civil Judge in R.C.S No. 38 of 1989 has been assailed firstly by way of M.C.A No. 8 of 1990 and having remained unsuccessful the plaintiff- appellant preferred First Appeal No. 9 of 2005. However, again he remained unsuccessful. 8. In view of above, what plaintiff intend to decide in a R.C.S No. 220 of 1989 has already been decided on the judicial side by the Court of competent jurisdiction and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The plaintiff did not choose to challenge the observations and findings arrived of the learned Appellate Court in R.C.A No. 9 of 2005 as such it attained the finality. 9. In view above, since the principle of resjudicata is attracting in the matter the present Second Appeal deserves no consideration. 10. The learned Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the plaint and confirming the same in R.C.A. The scope of the Second Appeal has been well explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Versus Gurcharan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs And Others, 2023 (20) SCC 104 , in para 7, 14 and 15 held as under:- “7. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The parameters of an appeal under Section 100, CPC passing muster are well established. The section itself dictates that such an appeal shall only be maintainable when the case involves a substantial question of law or that the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. the latter, obviously is not the case. This court has, in a multitude of decisions, expounded on what may be termed as a substantial question of law to satisfy the requirements of section 100. 14. The principles of law cited herein may be undoubtedly good law, but, however, in the considered view of this court, they do not hold in the case put forward by the Appellant. A perusal of the witness statements of DW-3 as duly recorded by the High Court, (the court also relies on the cross examination portions of DW-4 although the same do not form part of the record before this court.) shows that father of the Appellant had indeed partitioned the property during his lifetime. In such situation selling a part of his share in an undivided property, is a question that does not arise. Reliance on Shyam Sunder (supra) does not support the case of the Appellant as there is nothing on record to reflect any effort having been made by him to substitute himself in place of the Respondents in buying the 4 marlas of land from Faqir Singh in order to keep a stranger, namely Gurcharan Singh from entering into family-owned property. Had the Appellant made any such effort and the same would be reflected from record, then it could have been argued that he has a right to exclude the Respondents. 15. As already noted above, another ground of objection taken by the Appellant is the fact of the impugned judgement entering into a reappreciation of evidence. While it is true that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court. However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone.” 11. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I am of the opinion that the Second Appeal deserves no consideration and requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected, in limine. 12. However, it is also equally well recognised that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone.” 11. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I am of the opinion that the Second Appeal deserves no consideration and requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected, in limine. 12. In view of the rejection of Second Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.