IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.461 of 2006 ARJUN SHARMA @ ARJUN SINGH Versus WAKIL SINGH & ORS ----------- 5 29.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the plaintiff petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error inasmuch as the photostate copy of the agreement of sale, which was sought to be brought on record by way of evidence by the plaintiff-petitioner was in fact seriously disputed by the defendants as it did not contain their signature. In such a situation, the Court below has made an in- depth enquiry to come to a conclusion that such photostate copy could not have been taken on record especially when in the records of the Court also, such photocopy was not presented by the petitioner with the plaint in terms of order- VII Rule 14 C.P.C. The suit being one for specific performance of contract and the relevance of the all important agreement for sale having been gone into and decided by the Court below in a detailed manner and the findings and the reasonings in the impugned order can not be interfered by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the 2 judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Sagar Gond& Ors. Vs. Ganesh Gond & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 772 is also wholly misplaced in the facts of this case. From Ganga Sagar’s case (supra), it would be apparent that there was no dispute with regard to the document in question whereas in the present case, the agreements for sale, even the photocopy thereof without the signature of the defendant, was not an admitted document. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to find the ratio of the aforementioned judgment applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, this civil revision application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)