IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2029 OF 2008 Madhav Shrikant Chogle ..... ...... ......Appellant. V/s Sujata Farms Pvt. Ltd. ........ ......Respondent. Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo, Adv. For the appellant. None for respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 6th JANUARY, 2009. PC: The appellant herein is the original plaintiff who instituted a suit for specific performance of contract. The alleged contract/agreement was in the form of allotment letter allegedly issued by the defendant dated 20.12.90. The said allotment letter was filed in the trial Court after evidence of the plaintiff. Strangely enough the said document was not proved. It is also evident from the impugned judgment of the trial Court that he plaintiff even did not aver in the plaint as to what was the total consideration agreed between the parties. The trial Court has found that in the absence of proof of agreement and in the absence of pleading in relation to the concluded contract it is not possible to decree the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff claims that in the allotment letter dated 20.12.1990 what was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff was a plot of land admeasuring 1 hectare. However the defendant No.1 has 1 executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and her sister jointly in respect of an area of 1.40 hectares. According to the defendant what was agreed to be sold was 70 ares land to the plaintiff and 70 ares to the sister of the plaintiff. In the absence of proof of agreement that an area of 1 hectare exclusive of utility area was agreed to be transferred the plaintiff could not have secured decree for specific performance. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. V/s Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 659. The said judgment deals with delay in production of documentary evidence before settlement of issues and in regard to leading of additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. There is no application moved under under order 41 rule 27 as well. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urges that there is tacit admission of execution of allotment letter and hence it was not obligatory on the part of appellant-plaintiff to prove the said document. Said submission is devoid of merit. Perusal of the written statement leaves no room of doubt that the defendants have denied the document dated 20.12.90 and hence it was incumbent upon the appellant-plaintiff to have proved the same. Perused the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Same does not call for any interference. In this view of the matter there being not merit appeal it stands dismissed. 2