CSA 282/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil 2nd Appeal No.282/2007 Trilok Chand Versus Smt. Bhagwati & Anr. Date of Order ::: 30/01/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, for appellant (plaintiff) Instant second appeal has been filed by plaintiff assailing judgment & decree dt. 16/02/06 whereby Addl. District Judge No.2, Ajmer while dismissing his appeal (14/98) but allowing respondent No.2's appeal (6/2002)) set aside judgment & decree dt.31/03/98 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) NO.1, Ajmer and accordingly dismissed plaintiff's suit (204/93). Plaintiff (appellant) filed suit for specific performance regarding the agreement executed by power of attorney holder (respondent No.2) on behalf of respondent No.1 herein with plaintiff. Defendant No.1 disputed power of attorney as well as agreement executed in favour of defendant NO.2 and learned trial Judge framed issues while examining as to whether power of attorney was validly executed; and whether agreement executed is having any binding effect. CSA 282/07 //2// Both the courts below recorded finding of fact taking note of material on record particularly statement of Ram Chandra (Dw2) who has deposed that there was having business transaction and Rs.33,000/- was due at relevant time and in such circumstances, respondent No.1 entered into power of attorney. Both the courts below recorded concurrent finding of fact as regards powers of attorney and sale agreement allegedly executed holding the same as null & void; as such declined to grant decree for specific performance whereof. However, taking note of statement of defendant Ramchandra (Dw2), learned trial Judge partly decreed the suit in favour of appellant for Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. payable by defendant No.2 from 10/05/81 vide judgment dt.31/03/98 – against which defendant No.2 preferred appeal which was allowed vide judgment dt.16/02/06 by appellate court while setting aside decree of recovery of Rs.20,000/- on the premise that no relief for recovery whereof was claimed by plaintiff in his suit for specific performance which, itself was dismissed. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, perused the impugned judgments passed by courts below. CSA 282/07 //3// This court does not find any substance in any of submissions made (supra) which are nothing but re-appreciation of evidence while concurrent finding recorded by courts below is duly supported by due appreciation of facts and law based on material on record. No substantial questions of law arise in this second appeal, which may warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Records of courts below be returned back. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/282CSA07.doc.