I have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondents despite notice.

2. This Second Appeal has been directed against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 30.4.96 (decree signed on 22.5.96) passed by the then learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia dismissing the T.A. No. 12/93 preferred by the plaintiff/ appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.3.93 rendered by the then learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia dismissing Title Suit No. 1/90.

3. Admittedly this appeal is against concurrent findings of the Courts below. Arguing this Second Appeal mainly on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the finding of the learned appellate Court to the effect that the suit filed on 8.1.90 for alleged dis-possession of the plain tiff/appellant in the last week of August/ 1975 was time barred as per provision of Section 64 of the Limitation Act (for short the 'Act'), is perverse and illegal when the suit itself was refiled on the aforesaid date as per order dated 14.8.87 passed by the learned Munsiff who allowed the plaintiff/appellant to withdraw the suit but without granting any liberty to sue afresh