The scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is limited to substantial questions of law, which must be debatable and not previously settled by law or binding precedent.

Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

2. This is plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.

3. The plaintiff-appellant instituted Misc. Case No.06 of 2010 in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division),? Court No.4, Varanasi wherein he moved an application 4 Ga under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC claiming himself to be co-owner in possession as well as sharer in property existing in Arazi No.99 Kha with the prayer that the court Amin and decree holder Somara Devi be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the property existing in Arazi No.99 Kha area 20 1/2 decimal situate at Village Hashimpur, Tehsil and District Varanasi and he be not dispossessed of above property except in accordance with law. After hearing the matter on merits, the application was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Court No.4, Varanasi, vide order dated 20.02.2014, whereagainst, Civil Appeal No.38 of 2014 was preferred before the Additional District Judge,? Court No.8, Varanasi, which, too, after contest was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014.

4. Learned appellate court has basically taken into consideration the contents? raised in application 4 Ga and after considering record confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have not examined and scrutinized the evidence properly and the view taken by the courts below is not correct.

6. As regards submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that evidence has not been examined and scrutinized properly by the courts below, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to which part of the evidence has been misread and the relevant evidence has been omitted or inadmissible has been taken into account.

7. Instead of satisfying above query the learned counsel for the appellant stuck to the same arguments that both the courts below did not examine the evidence properly. Suffice to say, that argument alone cannot be ground to act upon it, in the absence of any supporting material. In so far as the plea that the courts below did not appreciate correctly the evidence is concerned, only this much would be observed that the plea will by itself not give rise to any question of law and what to say about substantial question of law. For substantial question of law the appellant is required to show that the courts below took note of inadmissible evidence and irrelevant evidence and omitted to consider admissible evidence.

8. It appears that learned counsel for the appellant wants this Court to assume nomenclature of the first appellate court and to re-appreciate evidence and facts which have been concluded by concurrent finding of the courts below. This plenary exercise cannot be done in second appeal in view of concurrent findings which are very much based upon proper appreciation of evidence. It would not be out of reference to note at the cost of repeation, that the scope of exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is limited only to the substantial question of law. To be a substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and answer to the same will have a material bearing as to the rights of the parties before the Court. This very aspect of substantial question of law has been elaborated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govindaraja Vs. Mariamman, AIR 2005 SC 1008 .

9. In the present case, both the courts below while recording concurrent findings have taken into consideration all the points raised and answered between the parties, pros and cons, therefore it is incumbent upon the appellant to come out with the particular piece of evidence which has been left untouched by the courts below. The scope of substantial question of law has been furt