Full Judgment
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.
1. In this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter to be called 'the Code'), the challenge is against the judgment and decree passed by the VIth Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Title Appeal No. 103 of 1981/87A of 1992 on 2.12.1998, whereby the First Appeal came to be dismissed. However, it has been observed in the final order that during allotment, the appellant Champa Devi and others could set land covered under documents, Exhibits A-1/3, A-1/2 and A-1,. Thus, the learned First Appellate Court gave a further direction over and above the trial court decree recorded in Title Suit No. 183 of 1975/24 of 1980 on 21.8.1981, wherein suit for redemption and partition of 1/6th share in the suit land and recovery of possession thereof came to be decreed. The First Appellate Court has, as such, confirmed the conclusion of the trial Court.
2. The learned counsels for the parties are heard and the entire record has been examined and evaluated.
3. It is very clear from the provision of Section 100 of the Code that unlike wider jurisdiction to the First Appellate Court, in terms of the provisions of Section 96 of the Code, a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code has a very narrow jurisdiction, as provided in Section 100(4) of the Code, that there ought to be a substantial question of law for the appreciation and adjudication in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code. It is also a well settled proposition of law that re-evaluation and reappraisal of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, which normally is done by the first appellate Court, is not permissible while entertaining a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code.
4. It is, really, very unfortunate that the dispute in the present case is pending since' last 30 years and yet the final decree process is to be undergone. What a travesty of justice, despite the fact that it is mandated in the Constitution of India that accessibility and affordability of system of justice should be very easy and the litigant of consumer of justice shall receive justice at the doorstep expeditiously and in an inexpensive way, rest with less complicated procedure. It is in this context that it was difficult for this Court to resist the temptation of placing on record the aforesaid observation which is, of course, heart killing and very painful. The traditional system of law has failed to deliver the good. Therefore, it was suggested whether there was any scope for an amicable settlement between the parties and the response is not satisfactory from both the sides.
5. Be that as it may, in the case on hand, which is a Second Appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, with limited jurisdictional scope and viewed in the light of the factual backdrop and merits of the two impugned judgments, one of the trial Court and the other of the First Appellate Court, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the Second Appeal on hand deserves to be dismissed at the threshold in absence of any substantial question of law being involved, however, without any order as to costs.