JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Raghunandan, learned Counsel appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme for the appellants, and Ms. Susan Linhares learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This appeal was admitted on 18.08.2005 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

"1. Whether the suit instituted by the appellants challenging the legality of the notices dated 13.12.89 and 18.12.89 demanding payment of the compounding fees was barred by provisions of Section 28 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984?

3. Today Mr. Raghunandan, learned Counsel for the appellants relying on the provisions of Section 100(5) of the C.P.C., urges framing of yet another additional substantial question of law in the context of the provisions of Section 30 of the Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (said Act). The question proposed by him reads as follows:

" Whether the proceedings initiated against the plaintiffs for the offence under Section 8 of the Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 were vitiated in view of Section 30 of the Preservation of Trees Act, 1984."

4. According to me, there is no necessity for framing any additional substantial question of law, since it is always