1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR S. A. No. 186 OF 2009 Ananda Laxman Waghmare v. Ambadas Ramji Bhagat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Deshpande h/f Mr. Anand Parchure advocate for the Appellant. .... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 11 th JUNE, 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the absence of prior permission under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly since the appellant belongs to Andha - Scheduled Tribe, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant decree for specific performance of contract. 2. I have gone through the judgments recorded by the courts below. It appears that after filing the written statement and amendment to the written statement, the appellant chose to disappear from the Court with the result the Court made an order against the appellant saying that the 2 appellant did not want to lead any evidence. As a consequence to this order, neither any oral evidence was tendered nor any documentary evidence showing that the appellant belongs to Andha - Scheduled Tribe was proved. Filing of written statement saying that the appellant belongs to Andha - Scheduled Tribe or the amendment in addition thereto, cannot take the place of proof or cannot be said to be evidence. Respondent/plaintiff categorically stated in evidence that the appellant did not belong to Andha - Scheduled Tribe. He should not have abandoned the proceedings after filing written statement. Merely because the appellant filed caste certificate which could not be proved for the above reasons, I do not find any error with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below that the appellant failed to prove its case. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law, as such, arises in the above back ground. Second appeal is therefore dismissed. JUDGE /TA/